Architecture 
in  Syria 


A   DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE 

FACULTY  OF  PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

S.   BUTLER  MURRAY,  JR. 


PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

PRINCETON 

LONDON:  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1917 


EXCHANGE 


Hellenistic  Architecture 
in  Syria 


A   DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE 

FACULTY  OF  PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

S.  BUTLER  MURRAY,  JR, 

' 


PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

PRINCETON 

LONDON  :  HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1917 


Published  December,  1917 

Accepted  by  the  Department  of  Art  and  Archaeology 
April,  1912 

Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 


»        *'*>'  ***'*  »>"'«' **"*^  "*'        ^      »>      **'•* 

*   «*  *  V*1*  *^,   *  *'«*  -'     *  **"      «» 


PREFACE 

The  purpose  of  this  thesis  is  to  show  that  the  architecture  of 
Syria  up  to  the  end  of  the  third  century  A.D.  was  Hellenistic. 
In  general  only  dated  monuments  have  been  considered,  or 
those  whose  period  can  be  determined  with  certainty.  With 
these  restrictions,  all  the  monuments  of  Northern  Central  Syria 
and  of  the  Djebel  Hauran,  showing  details  of  any  importance, 
have  been  considered.  Baalbec,  as  being  in  process  of  publica- 
tion, has  been  omitted  except  for  occasional  reference.  South 
of  the  Hauran  only  the  ruins  at  Arak  il-Emir  have  been  in- 
cluded, with  those  of  Djerash  and  Amman  for  reference. 
Monuments  published  by  Mr.  H.  C.  Butler  since  April,  1912, 
are  not  included. 

In  the  spelling  of  names  the  system  has  been  followed  that 
is  employed  by  Dr.  Enno  Littmann  in  the  publications  of  the 
American  Archaeological  Expedition  to  Syria  in  1899-1900 
without  the  use  of  diacritical  signs.  For  a  clearer  illustration 
of  some  details  reference  has  been  made  to  the  photographs 
taken  by  the  same  expedition.  Full  sets  of  these  may  be  se- 
cured on  application  to  the  American  Archaeological  Expedi- 
tion to  Syria,  University  Library,  Princeton,  N.  J.,  U.  S.  A. 

I  desire  to  take  this  opportunity  to  extend  to  Professors 
Allan  Marquand  and  Charles  Rufus  Morey  my  grateful 
acknowledgment  for  their  guidance  and  criticism  in  my  studies 
in  archaeology:  but  especially  I  acknowledge  my  very  great 
indebtedness  to  Professor  Howard  Crosby  Butler.  It  was  at 
his  suggestion  that  this  investigation  was  begun,  and  his  in- 
valuable aid,  both  in  material  and  suggestion,  alone  made  it 
possible. 

S.  BUTLER  MURRAY,  JR. 
Merwick,  Princeton  University, 

April,  1912. 
Revised,  July,  1917. 


HELLENISTIC  ARCHITECTURE  IN  SYRIA 

INTRODUCTION 

In  his  "Kleinasien,"  Strzygowski,  speaking  of  the  architec- 
ture of  the  East  in  the  fourth  century,  has  pointed  out  that  it 
"nicht  anderes  als  eine  Art  Nachbliite  sein  diirfte  von  dem, 
was  die  hellenistische  Kunst  des  Orients  auf  diesem  Gebiete 
schon  friiher  geschaffen  haben  muss."1  and  again,  "Was  Kon- 
stantin  in  seinen  Monumentalbauten  an  den  Anfang  der  christ- 
lichen  Reichskunst  stellte,  das  war  nicht  funkelnagelneu  aus 
dem  Boden  gestampft,  sondern  nur  moglich  im  Gefolge  einer 
grossen  Entwicklung  der  hellenistischen  Architektur  in  den 
Grosstadten  des  Orients.  Von  ihr  aber  wissen  wir  bis  heute  so 
gut  wiegarnichts."2 

We  have,  indeed,  only  too  scanty  remains  of  this  developed 
Hellenistic  art,  such  as  must  have  flourished  at  Antioch.  Yet 
in  the  rest  of  Syria,  and  especially  at  Palmyra,  there  is  a  wealth 
of  material.  Little  or  no  attention  has  been  paid  to  the  archi- 
tecture of  Syria  beyond  the  splendid  publication  of  the  monu- 
ments by  M.  de  Vogue  and  by  Howard  Crosby  Butler.  Refer- 
ences to  it  fall  into  two  classes;  some  simply  assume  it  to  be 
Greek,  while  others  call  Roman  everything  that  belongs  to  our 
era,  the  period  of  Roman  political  supremacy3  either  classifica- 
tion being  made  without  any  specific  details  or  proof.  Butler 
alone  has  directly  denied  the  Roman  influence  in  the  architec- 
ture of  this  time,4  and  he  suggested  this  investigation  of  details. 

As  was  stated  in  the  preface,  it  has  been  necessary  in  gen- 
eral to  consider  only  dated  monuments.  Yet  the  number  of 
these  is  so  great,  and  the  evidence  they  offer  so  varied  and  so 
striking,  that  only  a  presentation  of  details  by  single  monuments 
could  suffice.  Furthermore,  such  strong  Oriental  influence  was, 
in  many  cases,  present  beside  the  Greek,  that  only  the  presenta- 
tion of  the  monuments  as  a  whole  could  lead  clearly  to  the 
necessary  conclusions.  This  has  caused  much  borrowing  from 
Butler's  publications.  Without  his  permission  to  use  his  ma- 
terial it  would  have  been  impossible  to  present  this  chapter  in 
Syrian  architecture. 

1 


Syrian* fribriuments  have' been  divided  into  two  great  classes; 
those  built  before  Roman  dominion,  and  those  succeeding  it.5 
But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  advent  of  Roman  political 
power  meant  the  advent  of  Roman  artistic  supremacy.  Pom- 
pey's  campaign  was  too  hurried  to  be  lasting  even  in  its  military 
results:  and  later  we  find  Antony  attempting  to  plunder  Pal- 
myra as  an  alien  and  hostile  city.6 

The  effect  of  Roman  conquest  upon  the  conquered  territory 
was  political  reorganization.  Laws  and  government  they  im- 
posed, but  religion  and  the  arts  they  took  unto  themselves  from 
the  conquered  people.  It  was  as  if  the  Roman  obeyed  literally 
the  command — 

Tu  regere  imperio  populos,  Romane,  memento ; 
Hae  tibi  erunt  artes ;  pacisque  imponere  morem, 
Parcere  subiectis  et  debellare  superbos. 

As  Butler  has  said  in  speaking  of  the  region  of  the  South7 
— "What  we  call  the  'Roman  architecture'  was  not  an  art 
that  was  brought  from  overseas  and  transplanted  in  new  soil, 
but  represented  the  mere  extension  of  the  art  of  one  portion  of 
Syria  to  another  portion — from  Greek  Syria  to  Semitic  Syria — 
a  process  which  Rome,  with  her  wonderful  power  for  organi- 
zation and  amalgamation  accomplished  as  doubtless  no  other 
power  could  have  done." 

The  comparative  peace  and  security  afforded  by  Roman  rule 
and  the  stable  organization  of  civil  affairs  made  possible  the 
further  development  of  an  architecture  that  was  an  heritage 
when  the  Romans  first  came  and  which  had  already  made  its 
force  felt  at  Rome.8  To  show  this  is  the  aim  of  this  discussion 
but  for  the  Romans  to  introduce  an  art  of  their  own  was  im- 
possible if  for  no  other  reason  than  that  they  had  none,  but 
were  borrowing  from  just  these  provinces,  with  which  conquest 
had  brought  them  into  contact,  and  were  carrying  home  the 
spoil  that  made  Rome  the  clearing  house  of  the  world.  In  the 
Imperial  architecture  of  Rome  we  find  only  another  species  of 
Hellenistic  architecture  with  certain  local  modifications,  the 
results  of  its  new  environment.  Even  the  strongest  adherents 
of  Rome  as  an  artistic  center,  originating  rather  than  receptive, 
claim  only  the  arch  and  all  that  it  involves  as  an  individual 
feature.  Yet  we  shall  see  that  the  arch  was  used  in  Asia 
Minor  in  Hellenistic  times  before  Rome  had  finished  her  strug- 
gles with  Carthage.  And  it  is  doubtful  whether  Etruria,  in 


bequeathing  the  arch  to  the  other  Italian  peoples,  did  not  merely 
pass  on  what  she  herself  had  received  from  the  East. 

It  would  be  absurd  enough  to  speak  of  Rome  introducing 
forms  of  her  art  upon  another,  when  she  had  received  them 
from  the  common  parent ;  but  a  worse  field  than  Syria  for  such 
a  transplanting  could  scarcely  be  imagined.  As  Diehl  has  said 
in  speaking  of  Syria — "In  spite  of  the  profound  influence  ex- 
erted by  Greek  civilization,  in  spite  of  the  long  duration  of 
Roman  domination,  the  country  had  always  remained  'fort  par- 
ticulariste' — Assuredly  the  great  cities,  such  as  Antioch,  had 
become,  quickly  enough,  capitals  of  Hellenism — but,  beneath 
this  veneer  of  Hellenism,  there  persisted,  above  all  in  the  coun- 
try, the  characteristic  traits  of  the  Semitic  race,  so  deeply  im- 
pressed on  their  souls  that  Syrian  Christianity  took  its  special 
character  from  them."9 

Negative  criticism  in  itself  is  worthless.  Therefore  it  has 
not  been  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Syrian  monuments  are  not 
Roman :  the  attempt  has  also  been  made  to  recognize  those  ele- 
ments that  are  Oriental,  and  particularly  to  notice  original 
features,  such  as  the  arched  intercolumniation,  which  show  that 
this  Hellenism  in  Syria  was  not  the  last  effort  of  a  decadence, 
but  a  living  growth,  possessing  in  itself  the  power  for  further 
and  greater  development. 

Comparison  has  been  made  most  frequently  with  Hellenistic 
monuments  of  Asia  Minor ;  not  that  Syria  necessarily  borrowed 
from  Asia  Minor,  but  because  Asia  Minor  best  represents  the 
stage  of  Greek  civilization  before  and  during  the  period  under 
consideration.  Had  we  any  knowledge  of  Antioch,  the  capital 
of  the  world,  which  was  by  far  the  most  influential  center  of 
the  East,  there  would  probably  be  no  thesis  to  prove.  As  it  is, 
we  must  turn  to  other  and  less  important  centers  for  the 
material  for  comparison. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  Syrian 
architecture  shows  a  quite  different  spirit  from  that  shown  in 
the  monuments  at  Rome.10  And,  as  the  consideration  of  the 
individual  monuments  will  show,  this  is  a  Greek  rather  than 
Roman  spirit. 

In  the  case  of  the  earliest  monuments  it  is,  of  course,  impossi- 
ble to  deny  that  they  are  a  direct  Hellenistic  heritage.  The 
Kasr  il-Abd  at  Arak  il-Emir,  the  temples  and  tomb  at  Suweda, 
and  the  two  temples  at  Si  were  all  built  before  the  Romans 
could  secure  even  a  definite  political  influence  in  the  country. 

3 


Yet,  even  when  we  come  to  the  first  and  second  centuries  A.D., 
when  marks  of  a  Roman  influence,  if  there  was  ever  to  be  one, 
must  surely  have  appeared,  we  find  still  the  Hellenistic  archi- 
tecture, maintaining  greater  purity  than  its  cousin  at  Rome  and 
developing  within  itself  new  features  that  will  appear  later  in 
the  conglomerate  style  of  Rome. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  mass  of  evidence,  the  wide 
unfamiliarity  of  the  subject,  the  presence  of  different  threads 
of  artistic  influence,  and  above  all  the  organic  growth  of  the 
architecture,  necessitated  a  chronological  presentation  of  indi- 
vidual monuments.  It  will  be  well  therefore,  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  evidence,  to  state  briefly  the  general  conclusions 
which  that  evidence  demands. 

There  are  very  few  monuments  that  do  not  show  some  native 
or  Oriental  influence.  This  is  strongest  in  the  Hauran,  owing 
to  the  power  of  the  Naba-taeans,  and  there,  in  one  period,  that 
of  the  temples  at  Si,  its  strength  amounts  to  an  almost  complete 
eclipse  of  Greek  tradition. 

The  temple  plans,  while  in  general  following  Greek  tradition, 
show,  at  times,  native  modifications,  as  at  Siiweda,  Kanawat, 
Si,  and  at  Palmyra. 

Certain  individual  characteristics  were  doubtless  caused  by 
the  material  used.  The  extreme  hardness  of  the  basalt  was  evi- 
dently the  reason  for  unchanneled  columns  everywhere  in  the 
South  and  for  the  total  absence  of  dentil  courses.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  find  fluted  shafts  at  Palmyra,  and  dentils  at  both 
Burdj  Bakirha  and  Dmer  and  in  other  Syrian  buildings. 

Perhaps  the  most  striking  characteristic  of  all  the  monu- 
ments is  their  purity  of  proportion.  We  shall  see  in  the  discus- 
sion of  the  various  buildings,  how  much  more  closely  the 
entablature  was  conformed  to  the  Greek  proportions  than  to 
those  of  Rome.  After  all  it  was  only  natural  that  the  Hellenis- 
tic tradition  should  remain  purer  in  a  country  where  it  was 
opposed  only  by  one  and  a  totally  different  influence,  than  in 
the  Imperial  city  where  countless  varieties  and  shades  of 
artistic  expression  were  mingled. 

In  all  the  monuments  the  acanthus  is  of  the  crisp  'V  section 
that  is  characteristically  Greek,  and  which  the  earliest  Italian 
examples,  that  are  purely  Hellenistic,  also  show.11  Again,  in 
the  acanthus  rinceaux,  at  a  time  when  Rome  covered  the  stalks 
completely  in  a  meaningless  manner,  the  purity  of  the  Greek 
tradition  was  maintained.12  This  purity  in  decoration  is  uni- 

4 


versal.  There  is  none  of  that  florid  excess  of  ornament  that  dis- 
tinguishes— or  mars — the  Imperial  architecture.  The  temple 
of  Burdj  Bakirha  to  take  but  one  example,  is  a  striking  contrast 
to  that  of  Antoninus  and  Faustina :  and,  in  the  creation  of  new 
types,  such  as  the  composite  capital,  the  purity  of  the  original 
forms  is  retained.  There  are  no  such  florid  creations  as  the 
capitals  of  the  Caracalla  baths. 

The  typical  Roman  temple  plan  with  deep  pronaos  and  one 
or  more  columns  on  the  return,  does  not  occur.13  Still  more 
significant  is  the  fact  that  the  modillion  cornice,  inseparable 
from  the  Roman  order,  is  usually  replaced  by  a  cymation.14 

On  the  other  hand  there  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that 
Syrian  architecture  had  a  growth  and  development  of  its  own, 
but  a  growth  and  development  that  arose  from  the  earlier  Hel- 
lenistic tradition.  With  the  exception  of  Dmer,  the  fruits  of 
this  development  lie  beyond  our  period,  that  is,  after  the  end 
of  the  third  century ;  but,  in  the  time  under  consideration,  sev- 
eral new  features  were  evolved  that  were,  later,  to  furnish  the 
material  for  that  marvellous  development  in  church  architec- 
ture which  took  the  West  several  centuries  to  equal. 

The  arching  of  the  entablature  over  the  central  intercolum- 
niation  was  the  most  significant  of  these  'innovations.'  Its 
earliest  appearance  in  Syria  is  in  the  case  of  Nabataean 
monuments  to  be  quoted  later,  and,  in  the  discussion,  it  will  be 
seen  what  use  of  the  arch  was  made  by  the  Asia  Minor  Greeks. 
A  reason,  purely  theoretical,  has  been  there  advanced  in  sup- 
port of  the  direct  Hellenistic  rather  than  the  Eastern  origin,  so 
far  as  Syria  is  concerned.  On  the  other  hand  it  must  be 
admitted  that  this  arching  of  the  entablature  first  occurs  in  a 
temple  in  which  the  Eastern  influence  is  much  the  stronger, 
although  in  no  other  detail  of  the  temple  does  this  influence 
occur  in  the  introduction  of  a  form  or  principle  of  construction. 

Another  'innovation'  is  the  development  of  the  niche  as  a 
wall  decoration.  It  appears  as  early  as  the  arched  entablature 
and  its  use  steadily  increases  in  each  succeeding  period. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  feature,  if  not  the  most  impor- 
tant for  our  field,  is  the  development  of  the  'adyton'  in  the 
temple  cella,  and  then  the  creation  of  a  'crypt'  by  the  vaulting 
of  the  cella  floor.  The  addition  of  side  chambers  in  the  'adyton' 
gives  a  prototype  for  the  sanctuary  of  a  Christian  church.  In 
this  case,  as  in  others,  limitation  of  space  and  field  has  pre- 
vented the  treatment  of  much  of  very  great  interest.  An  even 

5 


greater  handicap  has  been  the  lack  of  any  systematic  treat- 
ment of  the  development  of  Roman  architecture.  However, 
the  latter  can  only  be  of  use  after  there  has  been  a  clear  recog- 
nition of  the  relations  of  the  Imperial  arcnitecture  to  those  of 
the  countries  that  came  under  the  Roman  sway. 

ARAK  IL-EMIR 

The  Kasr  il-Abd,  at  Arak  il-Emir,  in  the  country  east  of  the 
Jordan  and  south  of  the  Hauran  was  first  seriously  described 
by  M.  de  Vogue  in  his  Temple  de  Jerusalem.15  It  has  been 
noticed  by  many  travellers  and  explorers,16  but  its  complete 
publication  and  description  are  due  to  Mr.  Howard  Crosby 
Butler.17  In  endeavoring  to  single  out  the  Greek  influence  in 
the  architecture,  reference  will  be  made  to  his  work  alone.  He 
has  given  in  full  the  history  of  the  site,  so  far  as  is  known,  and 
the  evidence  for  the  probable  date  of  the  Kasr  il-Abd. 

In  the  megalithic  character  of  the  masonry,  M.  de  Saulcy  has 
seen  Phoenician  influence,  while  in  the  frieze  of  lions  we  can- 
not but  be  reminded  of  the  almost  identical  one  at  Susa.1& 
Indeed  it  seems  highly  probable  that  in  this  monument  several 
lines  of  artistic  tradition  met  to  receive  a  more  or  less  free 
handling  by  the  builders,  as  is  certainly  the  case  with  the  Greek, 
with  which  alone  we  are  concerned. 

To  take  up  the  details,  in  the  north  porch  there  are  plinths 
beneath  the  column  bases,  a  use  occurring  as  early  as  the  III 
Cent.  B.C.  in  the  propylon  of  the  agora  at  Magnesia.19  The 
plinths  are  not  of  one  piece  with  the  base  as  was  the  Roman 
custom,20  but  are  separate  blocks,  as  at  Priene;  and  Magnesia 
shows  the  same  cutting  of  the  entire  base,  both  of  the  columns 
and  pilasters,  on  the  lowest  drum  of  the  shaft.21  At  a  height 
of  16  cm.  above  the  base  the  shaft  carries  a  projecting  ring, 
which  Mr.  Butler  believes  had  to  do  with  quarrying  or  trans- 
portation.22 The  profile  of  the  base  itself  is,  curiously  enough, 
very  close  to  that  of  the  best  period  of  Greek  architecture.  As 
the  Hellenistic  period  advanced  the  base  scotia  was  cut  back 
more  and  more,  giving  greater  prominence  to  the  upper  torus,23 
but  here  the  hollow  of  the  scotia  lies  very  little  nearer  the  shaft 
center  than  the  convex  of  the  upper  torus,24  as  in  the  base  of 
the  Erectheion25  and  of  the  monument  of  Lysicrates.26 

The  shafts  are  unchanneled  as  is  almost  universal  throughout 
Syria.27  The  capitals,  which,  in  Mr.  Butler's  restoration,  are 
assigned  to  the  north  porch,  are  a  variety  of  the  Greek  Corin- 


thian.28  In  their  general  appearance,  in  the  arrangement  of  the 
rows  of  leaves,  and  in  the  amount  of  bell  left  bare,  they  are 
most  like  those  from  the  Tholos  at  Epidauros.29  Yet  the 
springing  of  the  central  spirals  is  different,  the  abacus  is  lower, 
and  the  leaves,  which  are  of  a  water  plant,  are  uncut,  a  capital 
instance  of  a  native  translation  of  a  Greek  form.  The  type  of 
leaf  and  the  disposition  in  a  double  row  is  precisely  that  found 
on  the  base  of  a  pier  of  the  second  order,30  the  upper  in  the 
restoration. 

The  entablature  is  an  adaptation  of  the  Greek  Doric.  Ar- 
chitrave, metopes  and  triglyphs  are  of  one  block.  The  propor- 
tion of  architrave  to  frieze,  I  '.1.14,  is  almost  exactly  that  of  the 
Temple  of  Asklepios  at  Epidauros:31  that  of  the  triglyph  to 
metope,  on  the  central  block  of  the  epistyle,  is  about  one  to  one 
and  one  half,  the  normal  proportion.32  The  upper  end  of  the 
triglyph  groove  is  finished  by  a  straight  horizontal  line,  instead 
of  a  curve  as  in  the  best  period ;  but  the  triglyphs  themselves 
are  flush  with  the  face  of  the  architrave33  and  do  not  project 
as  might  easily  have  been  the  case  if  they  were  copied  from  a 
model  of  the  Seleucid  period.34 

The  smaller  order  shows  immediately  above  the  upper  torus 
of  the  base  a  double  row  of  leaves.35  This  also  occurs  above 
the  base  of  a  column  from  the  triumphal  arch  at  Dj crash36  and 
above  the  bases  of  the  columns  of  the  fagade  of  the  temple  at 
Suweda,37  where,  however,  the  leaves  are  inverted  with  sharp 
tongues  showing  between:  Also  in  the  peribolos  of  the  Temple 
of  Baal  Samin  at  Si38  two  sorts  of  bases  occur.  One  has  a 
single  row  of  leaves,  that  are  broad  and  cut ;  the  other,  above 
a  broad  inverted  cyma  a  narrow  one  that  might  easily  have 
received  a  carved  inverted  row  of  leaves.  Such  a  motif  is  cer- 
tainly not  Attic  Greek,  but  probably  of  Egyptian39  origin,  or 
Persian,40  occuring  rarely  in  the  Occident,  as  on  the  votive 
column  at  Delphi41  and  at  the  so-called  Baths  of  Diana  at 
Nimes.42 

The  "Persian"  capitals,  found  in  the  porch  and  interior,  were 
apparently  intended  to  be  finished,  either  by  finer  carving,  or  by 
applying  metal  details.43  Capitals  with  bulls'  heads  that  might 
represent  the  finished  form  occur  in  the  "Sanctuary  of  the 
Horns"  at  Delos,44  and  in  an  example  in  the  British  Museum 
from  Cyprus45  which  doubtless  were  the  result  of  the  same 
Persian  influence.46 

The  string  course  running  below  the  lion  frieze  is  certainly 

7 


not  Oriental,  nor  is  the  cornice  that  crowns  the  restored  facade. 
These  details,  with  the  bases  of  the  lower  order,  and  the  en- 
tablature, are  Hellenic  elements  in  a  monument,  otherwise 
thoroughly  Oriental  in  conception  and  execution.  They  are 
extremely  important,  however,  because  they  are  by  far  the 
earliest  examples  of  Greek  influence  in  Syria  that  we  have.  The 
date  assigned  by  Mr.  Butler,47  the  beginning  of  the  third  cen- 
tury B.C.,  cannot  be  too  early  in  view  of  the  resemblances 
mentioned  above  to  Greek  work  of  the  fifth  and  fourth 
centuries. 

SUWEDA 

The  Tomb  of  Hamrath,  ca.  85  ?  B.C.48  Apart  from  the  in- 
scription49 the  only  Oriental  feature  of  this  tomb  would  be 
the  stepped  pyramid  that  probably  rose  above  the  entablature.50 
M.  de  Vogue  found  the  first  course  of  this  still  in  situ,51  and  in 
his  plate  I,  shows  part  of  a  second  course.  Just  such  a  crown- 
ing is  found  above  the  Lion  Tomb  at  Knidos,52  thought  to 
have  been  erected  by  the  Athenians  after  their  victory  at  Knidos 
in  394  B.C.53  At  Alinda,  now  Dmirji  Dressi,  is  a  tomb,  on  a 
crepidoma  of  four  steps,  distyle  in  antis,  with  unfluted  Doric 
columns,  crowned  by  a  flat  mass  of  masonry,  one  course  high.54 
Curious  combinations  of  both  this  rectangular  crowning  and 
the  elements  of  a  stepped  pyramid  occur  in  the  fagades  at 
Petra55  and  at  Hegr56  pointing  probably  to  an  Oriental  origin  of 
religious  significance. 

The  Alinda  tomb  and  numerous  other  examples  such  as  the 
Mausoleion  at  Halikaranassos,57  the  Nereid  Monument,58  the 
Sarcophagus  of  the  Mourners,59  and  Theron's  tomb  at  Akra- 
gas,60  show  that  the  general  type  of  rectangular  tombs  with 
heavy  crownings  was  familiar,  and  not  confined  to  any  one 
part  of  the  Greek  world. 

The  architectural  forms  of  Hamrath's  tomb  are  purely 
Greek.  The  unfluted  Doric  half-columns  have  no  bases,  and 
are  5.179  lower  diameters  in  height,  a  proportion  that  belongs 
to  the  best  period.61  Like  the  best  Greek  work  also  is  the 
slight  inward  batter.62  The  smooth  shafts,  almost  universal 
in  Syria,  and  the  absence  from  the  regulae  of  guttae  and  of 
mutules  from  the  cornice  are  provincial  traits  that  may  very 
probably  be  due  to  the  extreme  hardness  of  the  basalt.  The 
profile  of  the  echinus,  while  not  that  of  the  best  period,  is 
better  than  that  in  some  Hellenistic  examples,63  and,  further- 

8 


more,  in  the  greater  projection  of  the  echinus,  with  abacus, 
in  proportion  to  its  height,  again  the  imitation  of  good  Greek 
models  is  shown.64 

The  narrow  architrave,  however,  is  a  sign  of  decadence,  and 
the  distribution  of  triglyphs,  three  to  each  intercolumnar  space, 
is  characteristic  of  the  Seleucid  epoch,  whose  influence  also 
appears  in  the  Macedonian  helmet  with  pendants  and  other 
armorial  ornaments  between  the  columns.  Were  the  tomb  that 
of  a  warrior  these  might  be  otherwise  explained,  but  though 
Hamrath  was  a  woman  we  cannot  conceive  of  her  as  an  Ama- 
zon, and  we  find  a  similar  use  of  armor  for  decoration  on  the 
barriers  between  the  columns  of  the  second  storey  of  the  Stoa 
of  Eumenes  at  Pergamon65  and  in  the  Bouleuterion  at  Miletos.66 
The  placing  of  a  triglyph  at  each  angle,  and  the  consequent 
widening  of  the  metope,  and  the  narrowing  of  the  outermost 
intercolumniations,67  all  are  Greek.  At  Rome,  even  in  the 
Theatre  of  Marcellus,  where  some  Greek  influence  persists,  the 
Vitruvian  rule  of  a  half  metope  at  the  end  is  observed.68 

The  profile  of  the  gutter  is  a  cyma  as  might  be  expected  in  a 
monument  executed  under  Hellenistic  influence.  Mr.  Butler 
has  assigned  an  approximate  date  of  the  early  first  century 
B.C.69 

The  Peripteral  Temple.  This  temple,70  which  Mr.  Butler 
dates71  somewhere  between  the  Tomb  of  Hamrath,  ca.  85  ?  B.C., 
and  the  temples  at  Si,  33/32  B.C.-3O  A.D.,  is  included  in  this 
discussion,  which  properly  has  to  do  only  with  dated  monu- 
ments, for  the  sake  of  illustrating  the  gradual  trend  in  the 
Hauran  towards  an  almost  wholly  Oriental  style,  as  at  Si. 

The  building  has  decided  irregularities.  The  plan72  shows 
seven  columns  in  the  epinaos,  a  peculiarity  found  also  in  the 
Temple  of  Helios  (?)  at  Kanawat,73  and  arising  perhaps  from 
an  Oriental  and  religious  origin.74 

It  is  possible  that  the  fagade  is  of  different  date  from  the 
rest  of  the  peristyle.  Its  unfluted  columns75  have  an  inverted 
row  of  leaves  above  Attic  bases;76  their  capitals  exceed  one 
lower  diameter  in  height;  and  their  intercolumniations  dimin- 
ish from  the  center.  On  the  sides  and  rear,  however,  the  capi- 
tals are  less  than  a  diameter,  and  the  intercolumniations  are 
equal,  except  those  next  to  the  corners  which  are  widened  for 
the  width  of  pronaos  and  epinaos.77  Mr.  Butler  informs  me 
that  the  astragal  on  the  fagade  angle  capital  is  on  the  shaft, 
while  in  the  other  cases  it  is  part  of  the  capital,  and  that  it  may 

9 


be  that  the  temple  was  originally  prostyle  and  was  afterwards 
made  peripteral.  Both  capitals  and  bases  are  very  like  those 
of  the  same  period  in  the  temple  of  Baal  Samin  at  Si.78 

The  architrave  is  made  up  of  two  stone  beams,  laid  side  by 
side  over  each  intercolumniation.  On  the  rear  and  sides  the 
inside  face  of  the  inner  of  these  is  plain ;  the  outer  one  has  four 
equal  fasciae  inclined  slightly  backward,  beneath  a  narrow  per- 
pendicular fascia,  all  with  quirked  edges.79  This  was  probably 
true  of  the  fagade  also,  as  originally  constructed.  Its  present 
condition,  however,  shows  an  architrave,  also  dilithic,  with  an 
inner  member  treated  precisely  as  the  outer  of  each  pair  on  the 
sides  and  rear,  and  an  outer  one  carved  with  a  broad  band  below 
three  narrow  fasciae,  decreasing  upwards.  The  broad  band  is 
decorated  with  a  continuous  pattern  of  oblique  squares  with 
rosettes  in  the  centers  and  pellets  in  the  angles,80  a  motif  that 
occurs  in  the  Temple  of  Dionysos  at  Pergamon,  of  the  III  Cent. 
B.C.81 

Doubtless  in  the  rebuilding,  the  old  outer  half  of  the  archi- 
trave was  used  for  the  inner  half,  and  an  entirely  new  outer 
member  substituted  for  the  old.82  When  this  reconstruction 
took  place,  we,  of  course,  lacking  inscriptions,  cannot  tell.  Yet 
if  we  judge  from  the  capitals  of  the  fagade  which,  while  nec- 
essarily copying  the  older  ones  in  design,  by  their  height  may 
point  to  a  Nabataean  influence,  it  must  have  taken  place  before 
40  A.D.  when  the  Hauran  came  under  Roman  sway.  This 
would  also  seem  to  be  the  case  judging  by  the  curious  orna- 
mental projecting  course  above  the  architrave,  with  a  filleted 
cyma  recta  on  the  inner  face  and  panels  on  the  soffit  of  the 
overhanging  portion,  decorated  geometrically,  which  is  no  more 
Roman  than  Greek. 

The  mouldings  and  ornaments  of  the  portal  jambs  are  almost 
all  Oriental.  Only  an  ovolo  with  egg  and  dart  and  a  bead 
recall  the  Greek.  In  the  niches  that  flank  the  door  the  same  is 
true,  though  the  cyma  reversa  also  occurs.  But  while  both 
the  Classic  and  the  Oriental  appear  in  the  profiles  and  in  the 
decoration,  the  use  of  the  niche  itself  as  an  ornamental  feature 
is  purely  Eastern.83  Strzygowski  has  discussed  its  origin84  and 
regards  its  use  in  Syrian  temples  as  a  translation  from  earlier 
brick  constructions  in  the  East.  The  non-Greek  charac- 
ter of  the  niches  here  is  further  shown  by  their 
"raking  cornices"  that  do  not  terminate  upon  the  cornice 
proper  or  reproduce  its  profiles.  Of  very  different  inspiration 

10 


and  execution  are  the  "raking  cornices"  above  the  niches  of 
the  peribolos  wall  from  the  Temple  of  Aphrodite  at  Aphro- 
disias.85  The  "raking  cornices"  at  Suweda  are  carved  in  re- 
lief on  the  single  block  which  stands  above  the  crowning  mould- 
ings of  the  niche  itself.86  The  upper  corners  of  this  block  are 
notched  out  to  fit  the  courses  of  the  wall.  On  its  face  in  the 
"pediment"  is  an  eight-lobed  disk,  an  Eastern  ornament  pre- 
cisely like  those  found  by  Mr.  Doughty  far  to  the  south  of 
Petra.87  This  triangular  decoration  may  not  be  derived  from 
the  form  of  the  Greek  pediment,  but  from  the  zig-zag  or  tri- 
angle ornament  so  common  on  fagades  in  the  East.88  This 
same  motif,  more  fully  developed  in  a  later  period,  dominates 
the  great  frieze  of  Mshatta.89  There  is  no  feeling  for  a  "pedi- 
mental"  crowning  of  the  niche ;  for  later,  when  the  arch  is  in- 
troduced, as  in  the  temple  at  Atil,90  the  termination  of  the 
niche  is  also  a  niche.91 

It  is  interesting  to  notice  also  that  the  lower  edge  of  the 
"tympanum"  block  is  cut  away  in  the  center,  thus  forming 
what  is  a  very  early  example  in  Syria  of  a  flat  relieving  arch. 

SI 

Temple  of  Baal  Samm,  33/32-13/12  B.C.92  A  very  com- 
plete discussion  of  the  fragments  from  this  place  and  of  the 
periods  to  which  they  belong  has  been  given  by  Mr.  Butler;93 
the  dating  has  been  discussed  by  Fr.  Savignac94  and  by  Dr. 
Littmann.95  Of  interest  to  us  are  only  those  details  of  the 
second  period,  with  mixed  Classic  and  Oriental  elements,  in 
which  was  placed  the  Temple  at  Suweda  by  the  analogy  of  its 
forms.96  In  this  period  Mr.  Butler  has  placed  the  temple 
base  mould,  the  two  columns  of  the  porch,  the  architrave  dec- 
orated with  oblique  squares,  and  the  details  of  the  peribolos 
colonnade.  The  base  mould  is  unclassic.  The  columns  in  the 
porch  have  capitals  very  like  those  at  Suweda97  to  which  we 
refer  for  the  question  of  origin. 

The  development  of  the  leaves  to  the  acanthus  form  in  the 
examples  from  Si  would  seem  to  show  that  a  classic  influence 
was  felt  even  in  the  older  examples,  in  spite  of  their  Oriental 
form.  Just  such  an  influence  must  have  been  that  which  pro- 
duced the  capitals98  of  the  peribolos  which  is  walled.99  The 
influence  of  the  Doric  and  Ionic  orders  is  evident,  and  the  forms 
under  discussion  have  been  well  named  "Nabataean"  transla- 

11 


tions.100  It  is  interesting  to  see  that  in  the  case  of  the  "Ionic" 
the  borrowing  was  evidently  made  from  a  capital  of  the  "Her- 
mogenes"  type,101  as  we  should  naturally  expect.  The  archi- 
trave, decorated  with  oblique  squares,  has  been  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed under  the  Temple  at  Suweda,  which  see.  The  leaves 
above  the  bases  of  the  Nabataean  "Ionic"  columns  of  the  peri- 
bolos  and  those  from  the  temple  itself102  recall  very  strongly 
the  examples  from  Suweda,  although  the  base  leaves  in  the 
peribolos  are  not  inverted.  In  both  however  the  acanthus  ap- 
pears, a  stronger  classic  manifestation,  as  in  the  leaves  of  the 
temple  capitals.  Of  greater  interest  to  us  is  the  adjoining 
building,  the  so-called  Temple  of  Dushara. 

The  Temple  of  Dushara.  This  monument  whose  complete 
publication  has  appeared  in  the  Publications  of  the  Princeton 
University  Archaeological  Expedition  to  Syria103  had  pre- 
viously been  described  by  its  discoverer,  Mr.  Howard  Crosby 
Butler,  in  the  Florilegium  Melchior  de  Vogue.104 

In  plan,  as  well  as  in  execution  of  details,  there  is  little  that 
is  classic  about  the  temple.  As  in  the  Temple  of  Baal  Samin 
there  is  a  suggestion  of  the  Corinthian  order  in  the  foliate 
capital  and  in  the  entablature  with  its  three  divisions,  besides 
the  addition  here  of  an  Attic  base.  The  capital,  with  its  great 
acanthus  leaves,  is  only  another  of  the  "Nabataean"  type105 
that  we  have  seen  in  one  form  or  another  with  more  or  less 
influence  of  the  Corinthian,  at  Arak  il-Emir,  at  Suweda,  and  at 
the  nearby  Temple  of  Baal  Samin.  Still  the  Oriental  character 
predominates,  and  it  is  just  this  that  makes  the  suggested  dat- 
ing, between  33/32-13/12  B.C.  and  about  30  A.D.  the  only 
possible  one.106  Were  the  temple  earlier,  the  style  would  be 
overwhelmingly  classic,  as  in  the  Tomb  of  Hamrath ;  or,  also,  if 
later,  as  in  the  temples  at  Atil  and  Kanawat.  Such  a  prepon- 
derance of  Oriental  forms,  with  a  slight  infusion  of  the  classic, 
as  shown  in  this  monument,  can  belong  only  to  the  third  archi- 
tectural period  in  the  Hauran.  This  begins  with  the  rule  of 
Herod  the  Great  in  23  B.C.  and  lasts  until  nearly  the  end 
of  the  first  century.  And  the  inscription,  mentioning  Philip 
the  Tetrarch107  gives  a  terminus  ad  quern  of  about  30  A.D. 

The  date  of  the  temple  is  all  the  more  important  because  of 
a  feature  of  the  very  greatest  interest,  namely  the  arched  en- 
tablature. It  is  impossible  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  Mr. 
Butler's  restoration,  based  on  existing  fragments,  which  fur- 
nishes us  with  the  earliest  known  example  of  this  construction. 

12 


Without  attempting  to  go  into  the  question  of  the  arch  and 
its  origins,  it  is  of  great  importance  here  to  recognize  the  ex- 
istence of  examples  in  Hellenistic  architecture  from  which  the 
Syrians  could  have  borrowed  it,  along  with  the  other  classical 
forms,  if  they  did  not  take  it  directly  from  the  East. 

The  principle  of  the  arch  was  recognized  and  used  in  Asia 
Minor  before  any  possibility  of  an  influence  from  Rome.  At 
Priene,  both  the  great  city  gates  have  vaulted  entrances  which 
have  been  asserted  to  be  surely  fourth  century  work.108  In  the 
podium  of  the  Propylaea  of  Samothrace,109  built  by  Ptolemy 
II,  285-247  B.C.,  is  an  arched  passage.  At  Pergamon  the  con- 
struction of  barrel  vaults,  and  the  transition  from  them  to  cross 
vaults,  built  of  regularly  cut  stones,  had  reached  a  high  degree 
of  perfection  as  early  as  the  third,  or  certainly  as  the  second, 
century  B.C.110  And  the  work  of  an  Attalid  at  Athens,  in  the 
stoa  of  Eumenes  II,  197-159  B.C.,  is  a  series  of  arches  con- 
structed of  voussoirs  of  cut  stone.111  At  Priene,  again,  in  the 
assembly  hall,  dating  from  about  200  B.C.,112  there  is  an  arched 
window;  and  the  agora  door,  of  about  150  B.C.,  has  an  arch 
with  profiled  voussoirs.113  The  stones  of  a  similarly  profiled 
archivolt  have  been  found  in  the  ephebeion  of  the  gymnasium, 
II  Cent.  B.C.  They  belonged  to  the  arch  of  a  vaulted  statue 
niche  in  the  wall,  flanked  by  an  entablature  supported  by  Cor- 
inthian half  columns.  In  the  restoration  of  this  in  the  Priene 
publication114  we  may  see  the  prototype  of  the  arched  central 
intercolumniation  which  now  concerns  us. 

Strzygowski  has  said  that  while  the  door  arch  in  itself  was 
native  in  Mesopotamia,  its  use  upon  columns  was  first  carried 
out  in  Hellenistic  times,  perhaps  in  Seleucia  on  Tigris.115  Un- 
doubtedly the  door  arch  originated  in  Mesopotamia  and  from 
there  it  must  have  come  to  the  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor.  But  it  is 
from  the  latter,  rather,  that  the  Greek  architects  in  Syria  bor- 
rowed it.  For,  otherwise,  had  they  taken  it  directly  from  the 
East,  it  would  be  the  only  instance  in  Syrian  architecture  of  an 
Oriental  form  with  Greek  decoration.  Of  direct  borrowing 
from  the  East  there  are  scores  of  examples,  but  always  in  the 
guise  of  an  Oriental  decoration  that  is  placed  upon  a  Hellenis- 
tic form.  No  better  instance  could  be  cited  than  this  temple 
of  Dushara,  with  its  bare  outline  of  the  Corinthian  order  and 
three  part  entablature,  executed  in  thoroughly  Oriental  manner. 

Strzygowski  has  also  said  that  the  arching  of  the  entablature 
was  artistic  rather  than  constructive.116  He  contradicts  R.  von 

13 


Schneider  who  believes  that  its  introduction  was  due  to  a  cen- 
tral intercolumniation  too  wide  for  the  horizontal  architrave.117 
In  support  of  this  he  cites  various  examples  in  which  the  inter- 
columniation that  was  arched  is  narrower  than  the  rest.118  But, 
of  his  examples,  the  only  one  that  is  earlier  than  the  third  cen- 
tury A.D.  is  not  Eastern,  but  the  Purgatorium  of  the  Isis 
temenos  at  Pompeii119  and  here  the  arching  is  the  heading  of  a 
niche  and  the  date  is  the  time  of  Nero.  Now  the  latter  is  ante- 
dated by  the  Temple  of  Dushara,  and  in  the  Hauran  there  is 
another  instance  of  arched  entablature  dating  from  the  second 
century  and  probably  three  others.  Furthermore  in  all  of 
these  the  central  intercolumniation  is  not  only  broader  than  the 
rest,  but  in  two  of  the  cases  whose  dates  are  not  certain,  it  is 
so  broad  that  it  could  be  spanned  only  by  an  arch.120  For  con- 
venience a  list  of  the  Syrian  examples  with  their  dates  is  added 
here. 

Si  Temple  of  Dushara121        33  B.C.— 30  A.D. 

Atil  Temple122  151  A.D. 

Kanawat  Temple  of  Zeus123  II  Cent.  A.D. 

Temple  of  Helios?124  "      " 

Is-Sanamen          Tychaion125  191  A.D. 

Damascus  Propylaea126  Antonine 

Djerash  Propylaea127  150  A.D. 

Amman  Propylaea128  Antonine 

SERMEDA 

We  turn  now  to  the  first  of  the  three  monuments  of  North- 
ern Central  Syria  that  we  shall  consider.  The  architectural 
history  of  the  monuments  of  classic  style  in  this  section  of  the 
country  is  summed  up  by  Mr.  Butler.129 

The  first  dated  monument — leaving  Palmyra  for  special  at- 
tention— is  at  Sermeda,  on  the  north-east  slope  of  the  Djebel 
Halakah,  between  Antioch  and  Aleppo. 

Bicoluwmar  Monument.™  Excavations  at  Telloh  and  Niffer 
seem  to  point  to  an  Eastern  origin  for  the  erection  of  individual 
columns,  and  in  Solomon's  temple  occurs  an  early  instance  of 
twin  columns  with  symbolic  meaning.131  In  Greece  we  have 
Pausanias  as  authority  for  their  early  use  in  marking  graves,132 
but  the  use  of  two  columns  above  a  tomb  seems  to  have  arisen 
in  Syria.  In  the  north  several  pairs  occur  at  Sesonk133  while 
at  Kara  Kush  they  stand  singly,  in  pairs,  or  grouped  by 
threes.134 

14 


The  date  of  the  pair  at  Sermeda  is  between  132  and  141 
A.D.135  "The  mouldings  of  the  basement,  the  details  of  the 
Corinthian  capitals,  are  pure  in  style  and  refined  in  execu- 
tion."136 Judging  by  the  drawing  of  M.  de  Vogue  and  the 
photograph  of  Mr.  Butler,  the  columns,  which  are  unfluted137 
are  about  eight  and  one  half  diameters  high,  and  the  capitals 
one.  The  section  of  entablature  joining  the  shafts  at  about  two 
thirds  of  their  height,  is  perhaps  an  adaptation  to  twin  columns 
of  the  console  brackets  on  the  shafts  of  colonnades  and  temples, 
as  at  Palmyra  and  elsewhere. 

ATIL 

Temple138  151  A.D.  At  Atil,  on  the  west  slope  of  the  Djebel 
Hauran,  are  two  temples.  For  our  material  we  shall  consider 
only  the  western  one  which  is  dated.139  It  is  a  monument  of 
special  interest  not  only  because  of  the  arched  entablature, 
but  also  because  the  podium  has  arches  within  that  support 
the  cella  floor. 

This  use  of  arches  is  not  surprising  considering  the  extended 
use  of  the  arch  that  we  have  noticed  in  discussing  the  Temple 
of  Dushara  at  Si.140  Among  the  examples  there  cited,  it  will 
be  remembered,  was  an  arched  passage  in  the  podium  of  the 
Propylaea  of  Samothrace,  III  Cent.  B.C.141  Just  such  an  arched 
construction  as  this  at  Atil  occurs  in  the  podium  of  the  Temple 
of  Helios?  at  Kanawat,142  in  the  Temple  of  Artemis  at 
Dj  crash143  whose  foundations  are  vaulted144  and  in  the  Temple 
of  Zeus  at  Aizanoi.145 

The  Corinthian  order  of  the  columns  is  pure.  The  capitals 
but  very  slightly  exceed  one  diameter  in  height,  and  the  form 
of  the  leaves  is  Greek.146  A  console  projected  from  each  col- 
umn and  anta  at  about  one  half  the  height.  These,  doubtless, 
were  to  carry  statues,  after  the  Syrian  fashion  as  at  Palmyra.147 

The  architrave  was  decorated  with  the  Greek  fret  and 
rosettes,  which  were  very  popular  in  Syria.  No  cornice  frag- 
ments have  been  found,  but  over  the  central  intercolumniation, 
the  architrave,  and  the  frieze  with  its  ornament  of  leaf  scrolls 
in  relief,  were  arched.148  The  two  pairs  of  panels,  flanking  the 
door,  were  decorated  with  rinceaux,  the  inner  with  the  grape 
vine149  and  the  outer  with  acanthus.  Evidently  the  Oriental 
ornament,  so  common  in  the  earlier  monuments,  had  not  wholly 
disappeared.  Between  these  panels  are  quarter  columns,  where 
the  wall  is  slightly  broken  out.  These  are  fluted,  the  only  in- 

15 


stance  of  this  that  we  shall  find  in  the  Hauran  except  the 
columns  decorating  the  gateway  of  the  outermost  court  at  Si. 

Further  Oriental  treatment  comes  in  the  decoration  of  the 
niches  that  stand  between  the  panels  and  the  outer  pilasters.150 
The  maeander  and  rosettes  that  ornament  the  panels  of  the 
lower  niches  are  sui  generis.  The  upper  niches  end  in  conches 
below  the  jambs  which  are  carried  over  in  an  arch,  and  deco- 
rated with  a  most  individual  treatment  of  the  guilloche. 

The  niches  are  in  pairs,  one  above  the  other.  The  upper  of 
these  terminate  in  a  conch,  framed  by  the  arching  of  the 
jambs.  The  conch,  as  Strzygowski  has  observed151  is  thoroughly 
Eastern  and  a  natural  step  in  the  evolution  of  the  niche  as  wall 
decoration  which  first  appears  translated  from  brick  into  stone 
in  the  temples  and  nymphaea  of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.152  Fur- 
thermore the  placing  of  the  conch  with  lines  radiating  upwards, 
as  here  and  in  all  other  examples  we  shall  quote,  is  Eastern,  as 
has  been  pointed  out  by  Wiegand.153 

So  far  as  we  can  judge  this  is  the  earliest  example  in  Syrian 
architecture  of  the  conch.  It  represents  a  development  in  the 
use  of  the  niche  parallel  to  the  arching  of  the  entablature.  This 
is  an  evidence  of  growth  in  the  Hellenistic  architecture  in  the 
East  that  was  continuous  and  whose  continuity  was  maintained 
by  fresh  infusions  from  the  Orient. 

SITT-UR-RUM 

Tomb  of  Eisidotos.  Another  bicolumnar  monument,  dated 
152  A.D.,154  is  our  second  monument  from  Northern  Central 
Syria.  This  is  of  even  greater  severity  than  that  at  Sermeda. 
The  simple  mouldings  that  form  the  caps  of  the  quadrangular 
shafts,  and  the  profile  of  the  connecting  entablature,  are  most 
un-Roman.  The  pointed  niches  on  the  faces  of  the  shafts  re- 
call the  deeper  ones  on  the  column  to  Tiberius  Claudius  Sosan- 
dros  at  Bshindelaya.155 

BURDJ  BAKIRHA 

Temple.  The  tetrastyle,  prostyle  temple,  called  Burdj 
Bakirha,  on  the  north  slope  of  the  Djebel  Barisha  in  Northern 
Central  Syria,  dates  from  161  A.D.,156  and  is  one  of  the  very 
few  monuments  to  show  any  Roman  influence.  Yet  this  in- 
fluence is  neither  strong  nor  consistent,  as  study  of  the  details 
will  prove. 

16 


In  the  plan157  the  depth  of  the  pronaos  is  hardly  Greek,  yet 
a  Roman  temple  would  have  one  or  more  columns  "on  the  re- 
turn/'158 Furthermore  there  is  no  podium.  In  the  elevation 
the  pedestals  beneath  the  column  bases  and  the  proportions  of 
the  pediment,  about  1:4.31,  seem  very  Roman;  yet  the  wide 
spacing  of  the  pilasters  on  the  sides  and  rear  is  not.  In  the 
Maison  Carree  at  Nimes,  engaged  columns,  performing  the 
same  function,  are  much  more  closely  spaced;  so  too  in  the 
temple  of  Fortuna  Virilis,  so  Hellenistic  in  its  architecture, 
which  would  tend  to  show  that  this  exceptionally  wide  spacing 
is  not  only  not  Roman  but  also  not  Greek.  Actually  the 
pilasters  are  placed  so  as  to  emphasize  on  the  exterior  the 
presence  of  an  "adyton"  within  the  cella.  The  distance  from 
the  pilaster,  thus  marking  the  interior  division,  to  either  end  of 
the  cella  wall  is  such  that  it  is  impossible  that  there  was  once  a 
series  of  pilasters  evenly  spaced. 

Notice  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  an  adyton  is  usually 
to  be  found  in  a  Syrian  temple.159  The  principal  examples  are 
in  the — 

Temple  at  Burdj  Bakirha  161  A.D.160 

Temple  of  Zeus  at  Kanawat        Antonine161 
So-called  Jupiter  T.,  Baalbec  Antonine162 

Temple  of  Artemis  at  Djerash       Antonine163 
Tychaion  at  Is-Sanamen  191  A.D.16* 

Although  at  an  early  period  in  Greek  architecture  such  a 
"locus  templi  secretior  ad  quern  nulli  est  aditus  nisi  sacerdoti"165 
was  not  unusual166  it  soon  disappeared  and  is  not  found  in  the 
later  periods  or  at  Rome.  Its  origin  has  been  referred  to  an 
Oriental  source167  and  its  occurrence  would  seem  to  depend 
upon  the  presence  of  certain  strong  Oriental  influence.  If  so, 
it  is  less  surprising  to  find  it  lacking  in  the  Hellenistic  work  in 
Asia  Minor,  which  is  probably  the  cause  of  its  absence  in  the 
earlier  Hellenistic  buildings  in  Syria.  It  may  be  that  its  sud- 
den appearance  in  Syria  was  due  to  some  sudden  change  in 
cult.168 

The  example  at  Burdj  Bakirha  is  very  simple.  A  wall, 
pierced  by  a  doorway,  shuts  off  a  part  of  the  cella.  But  it  has 
not  been  possible  to  excavate  sufficiently  to  determine  whether 
there  were  not  side  chambers  also,  forming  a  three  fold  division 
of  the  cella,  as  in  all  but  one  of  the  later  examples.  At  Djerash, 
in  the  Temple  of  Artemis  the  adyton  is  an  extremely  small 

17 


compartment,  between  two  stairways,  and  separated  from  the 
cella  by  an  arch  springing  from  the  ends  of  the  stair  walls.169 
In  the  Temple  of  Zeus  at  Kanawat170  the  construction  is  very 
similar.  However  in  this  case  the  chambers  which  flank  the 
adyton  do  not  seem  to  have  contained  stairs.  They  give  rather 
the  effect  of  the  plan  of  the  Pretorium  at  Musmiyeh,171  and  of 
the  Tychaion  at  Is-Sanamen172  and  the  division  of  the  "nave" 
of  the  cella  by  two  rows  of  columns  and  the  construction  of  the 
roofing,  as  restored  by  Mr.  Butler,  increase  the  similarity  to  the 
Syrian  Christian  basilica  plan.  The  most  developed  type  is  in 
the  so-called  Jupiter  Temple  at  Baalbec.173  Here  the  side 
chambers  are  separated  from  the  adyton  only  by  columns  and 
the  whole  sanctuary  is  raised  seven  steps  above  the  rest  of  the 
cella.  As  the  foundations  of  the  cella  are  vaulted  a  "crypt"  is 
thus  formed. 

Mr.  Butler  has  called  attention  to  the  similarity  between  such 
a  plan,  in  the  Tychaion  at  Is-Sanamen,  and  that  of  many  Chris- 
tian churches  in  Syria.174  Sufficient  evidence  is  available  to 
develop  this  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  plan  of  the  Syrian 
Christian  basilica,  but  that  lies  beyond  the  field  of  this  discus- 
sion and  is  in  process  of  publication  elsewhere. 

Returning  to  the  discussion  of  the  Temple  at  Burdj  Bakirha, 
the  capitals,  according  to  Mr.  Butler,  are  a  little  taller  than  the 
Roman  type.175  Yet  judging  from  his  restoration  they  but 
slightly  exceed  the  lower  diameter  in  height. 

The  details  of  decoration,  or  their  absence,  however,  are 
certainly  Greek,  not  only  from  their  purity  and  simplicity,  but 
also  from  the  restraint  that  the  builders  showed.  There  is  not 
a  trace  of  that  profusion  of  elaborate  ornamentation  that  char- 
acterizes Roman  work  of  the  same  period,  as  for  example,  the 
highly  decorated  frieze  of  the  Temple  of  Antoninus  and 
Faustina.176 

The  capitals  of  the  columns  which  are  unfluted,177  exhibit  a 
very  elegant  treatment  of  the  Corinthian  order.178  Those  of 
the  pilasters,  consisting  of  a  row  of  four  stiff  acanthus  leaves, 
curling  slightly  over  beneath  an  egg  and  dart  echinus  moulding, 
are  very  beautiful,  and  of  a  type  found  nowhere  in  Rome.  A 
similar  use  of  an  egg  and  dart  echinus,  placed  above  a  palmette 
on  a  cymation,  is  found  on  the  capitals  of  the  interior  columns 
from  the  altar  hall  of  the  precinct  of  Artemis  at  Magnesia.179 

The  substitution  for  the  frieze  of  a  narrow  flat  band  is  in 
keeping  with  the  restraint  shown  in  the  whole  monument.  The 

18 


only  sculptured  decoration  of  the  entablature,  apart  from  the 
dentils,  is  a  series  of  bucrania  and  garlands,  relieved  on  a  deep 
cyma  recta  that  replaces  the  corona.  As  bucrania  are  found  as 
early  as  the  III  Cent.  B.C.180  on  both  the  Arsinoeion181  and 
Ptolemaion182  at  Samothrace,  and  then  a  more  developed  form 
with  the  skulls  joined  by  garlands  on  the  frieze  of  the  temenos 
of  Artemis  at  Magnesia183  and  on  the  portico  of  Athena  Polias 
at  Pergamon184  the  origin  of  this  motif  must  be  put  in  the 
Hellenistic  East,  not  at  Rome.185 

In  the  second  of  the  three  courses  of  the  western  pediment  an 
eagle  appears  in  high  relief,  a  figure  found  with  much  attend- 
ant decoration  on  the  soffit  of  the  cella  door  of  the  Bel  Temple 
at  Palmyra. 

MUSHENNEF 

Temple.18*  At  Mushennef  in  the  Hauran,  on  the  other  side 
of  the  great  plateau  from  Atil,  is  a  temple  whose  remains  re- 
semble, in  many  ways,  that  at  the  latter  place.  It  is  assigned  to 
the  period  of  the  Antonines  by  Mr.  Butler187  from  an  inscrip- 
tion found  nearby,188  and  from  a  comparison  with  the  temple 
at  Atil.  There  seems  to  have  been  a  peribolos  as  early  as  41 
A.D.138  . 

The  plan,189  distyle  in  antis,  is  very  simple.  The  temple  is 
raised  upon  a  podium,  lower  than  that  at  Atil,  projecting  far- 
ther beyond  the  cella  walls,  and  with  a  more  elaborate  cap 
moulding.  At  the  four  corners  of  the  cella  are  pilasters,  as  at 
Burdj  Bakirha,  with  Corinthian  caps,  the  leaves190  showing 
the  "V"  section  of  Greek  workmanship.  The  base  mould  of 
the  antae  is  Attic.  The  upper  torus  is  carved  with  bay  leaves, 
the  scotia  with  deep  perpendicular  grooves,  and  the  lower 
torus  with  a  guilloche.  Both  the  bay  leaf191  and  the  guilloche192 
recall  some  of  the  most  beautiful  of  earlier  examples.  The 
column  bases  are  Attic,  undecorated,  and  the  shafts  unfluted.193 
The  capitals,  unlike  the  antae  caps,  are  of  the  type  called  com- 
posite. For  a  better  understanding  of  this  type  it  will  be  well 
to  look  a  little  more  closely  than  has  been  done  into  its  origin 
and  development.  The  skeleton  of  the  theory  has  already  been 
formed  in  a  History  of  Architecture.194  To  this  may  now  be 
added  more  examples  and  from  it  further  conclusions  may  be 
drawn. 

At  Naukratis  in  the  Temple  of  Apollo,  a  fragment  of  an- 
themion  necking  was  found195  which  is  nothing  else  than  a  pro- 

19 


totype  of  the  developed  capital  of  the  Erectheion.196  Some  one, 
feeling  that  the  regular  Ionic  capital  was  not  high  enough  to 
give  a  sufficiently  dignified  conclusion  to  the  shaft,  added  the 
ornamental  necking.  A  stiff  Roman  translation  of  this  type 
is  now  in  the  Lateran  Museum.197  The  next  natural  step  in 
development  would  be  a  form  in  which  the  necking  would 
cease  to  exist  as  such,  and  would  become  an  integral  part  of  the 
capital.  An  example  of  this  is  the  little  known  "anthemion- 
composite"  capital  of  the  theatre  at  Laodicea.198  Here  all  the 
forms  of  the  Ionic  capital  are  retained,  and  that  joining  of  the 
volutes  by  a  horizontal  fillet  which  is  a  characteristic  of  the 
"Hermogenes"  capital,  arising  in  Asia  Minor199  and  carried 
from  there  to  Rome.200  The  necking,  which  is  now  part  of  the 
capital  above  a  fully  developed  astragal,  is  generally  like  that 
of  the  Erectheion,201  but  simpler  in  execution.  Instead  of  con- 
tinuous scrolls  from  which  the  palmette  grows,  these  are 
acanthus  calices,  so  that  we  naturally  expect  the  next  step  in 
the  development  to  be  the  entire  replacing  of  anthemion  by 
acanthus,  as  in  the  capitals  of  the  columns  in  antis  of  the  Zeus 
Temple  at  Aizanoi.202  It  is  fortunate  that  this  temple  can  be 
dated,  as  of  the  time  of  Hadrian,203  for  a  comparison  of  the 
forms  of  the  entablature  with  those  of  the  Laodicea  theatre 
will  clearly  show  that  the  theatre  is  the  earlier.204  In  every  way 
its  forms  are  more  simple  and  more  severe.  The  fasciae  of  the 
architrave  are  not  edged  with  the  bead  and  reel,  nor  is  the 
arcliitrave's  crowning  member  decorated  with  the  anthemion. 
The  temple  has  modillions,  the  theatre  has  not ;  and  the  cyma- 
tion  of  the  theatre  has  a  much  simpler  ornament.  The  decora- 
tion of  the  fillet,  joining  the  volutes  of  the  temple  capitals,  is 
very  similar  to  that  on  the  capitals  of  the  Ptolemaion  of  Samo- 
thrace,  III  Cent.  B.C.205  That  this  Aizanoi  example  is  one  of 
the  earliest  instances  of  the  use  of  the  acanthus  composite 
capital  is  supported  by  the  fact  that  in  the  theatre  at  the  same 
place,  whose  forms  are  later  than  those  of  the  temple,  the 
capital  has  rinceaux  of  acanthus  between  the  echinus  and  the 
astragal.206  Furthermore,  in  the  Temple  at  Aizanoi  the  com- 
posite capitals  are  used  in  company  with  the  Ionic.  The  type 
then  was  not  yet  fixed  as  a  form,  but  it  .must  have  been  popular 
enough  to  develop  rapidly.  For,  at  Myra,  the  theatre207  which 
was  restored  in  155-156  A.D.208  has  capitals  with  two  rows  of 
acanthus  leaves.  The  feeling  that  this  form  was  akin  to  the 
Corinthian  capital  is  manifested  by  the  use  of  an  acanthus  leaf 

20 


as  "flos"  on  the  abacus.  Corinthian  too  are  the  tendrils  that 
turn  inward  just  below  the  echinus,  as  the  inner  volutes  of  the 
Corinthian  capital.  This  developed  form,  with  a  double  row 
of  acanthus  leaves,  an  acanthus  as  "flos,"  and  returning  central 
tendrils,  is  the  predominant  type  found  at  Rome.  However, 
in  the  Roman  examples,  in  the  earliest,  on  the  Arch  of  Titus209 
and  in  all  others,  the  fillet  joining  the  volutes  is  always  raised 
upon  the  cavetto  of  the  abacus,  obscuring  that  member,  and 
reducing  its  architectural  significance,  or  else  it  disappears  al- 
together.210 Again,  in  the  capitals  of  the  Titus  Arch,  the  Arch 
of  Septimius  Severus,211  the  Baths  of  Caracalla212  and  of  Dio- 
cletian,213 a  carved  leaf  decoration  extends  both  ways  from  the 
"flos"  along  the  fillet  connecting  the  volutes,  and  fills  the  canalis 
of  the  latter.  Neither  of  these  characteristics  ever  occurs  in 
the  Asia  Minor  examples,  where  the  purity  and  proper  function 
of  the  elements  of  the  Ionic  capital  are  maintained.  Now  the 
significance  of  this  is  that  at  Laodicea,  Aizanoi  and  Myra  occur 
stages  in  the  development  of  the  composite  form  that  are  pe- 
culiar to  the  East,  and  which  we  shall  find  later,  in  Syria,  at 
Dmer.214  At  Mushennef  we  find  a  distinct  type,  equally  for- 
eign to  that  of  the  West  at  this  time.  Here  the  form  shows  a 
stronger  feeling  of  kinship  to  the  Corinthian.  For  the  volutes 
are  undoubtedly  those  of  the  Corinthian  order,  rising  at  the 
corners  of  the  bell.  The  capital  is  composite  only  because  the 
egg  and  dart  has  been  added  above  the  second  row  of  acanthus. 
Not  unexpected,  but  quite  natural  is  this  in  a  country  where 
the  preponderance  of  the  Corinthian  is  so  overwhelming  as  to 
be  practically  exclusive.  And  in  this  instance  the  composite  is 
a  timid  variant  at  best,  for  the  pilaster  caps  are  of  the  regular 
Greek  Corinthian  form. 

The  architrave  of  the  temple,  decorated  with  maeander  and 
rosettes,  shows  that  the  revival  of  classic  art  at  this  time  was 
not  complete.  Yet  the  frieze  shows  an  excellent  classic  design, 
a  scroll  of  slender  acanthus  and  delicate  flowers,  capped  by  a 
heavy  egg  and  dart. 

KANAWAT 

It  is  unfortunate  that  there  is  no  direct  evidence  for  the  dat- 
ing of  the  two  temples  at  Kanawat  in  the  Hauran.  Inscriptions 
that  have  been  found  there  from  the  reigns  of  Hadrian,215 
Marcus  Aurelius/16  and  Commodus,217  indicate  that  the  tem- 
ples belong  about  the  end  of  the  II  Century.  Since  at  this 

21 


period  there  was  no  such  marked  architectural  development  as 
there  was  in  the  earlier  periods  in  the  Hauran,  it  is  possible  to 
give  them  only  a  very  approximate  date.218 

Temple  of  Zeus,219  The  plan  of  the  cella  shows  two  rows  of 
interior  columns  and  a  chamber  in  each  of  the  corners.  Those 
at  the  rear  flank  the  adyton,  separated  from  the  rest  of  the 
cella  by  an  arch,  an  arrangement  very  similar  to  that  in  the 
Artemis  Temple  at  Dj crash.220  The  niches  in  the  chamber 
walls  flanking  the  adyton  arch,  and  the  two,  one  above  the 
other,  in  each  of  the  anta  walls,  are  all  rectangular  and,  as  the 
doorway,  flanked  by  mouldings,  without  any  ornamentation. 
The  revised  plan  shows  the  cella  triply  divided  by  rows  of 
columns.  The  significance  of  this  in  conjunction  with  the 
adyton  has  already  been  noted.221 

The  Attic  column  bases,  above  low  panelled  plinths,  are 
carved  with  guilloche  and  bay  leaf,  as  in  the  second  Temple  of 
Helios  ?,  and  at  Mushennef ,222  The  shafts  of  both  temples  show 
marked  entasis ;  they  are,  of  course,  unfluted,  as  everywhere  in 
the  Hauran.  The  capitals223  have  a  height  of  but  1.03  lower 
diameters.  The  width  of  the  central  intercolumniation,  about 
5  meters,  seems  to  indicate  an  arched  entablature.  This  is  up- 
held by  a  fragment  of  architrave,  still  in  situ,  with  the  bands 
of  the  face  carried  round  the  end. 

Temple  of  Helios?224  The  plan  shows  seven  columns  in  the 
rear,  as  in  the  peripteral  temple  at  Suweda.225  The  interior  of 
the  podium  was  built  up  with  arches  covered  by  slabs.226  The 
treatment  of  the  podium  wall,  broken  out  into  shallow  pilasters 
below  the  columns,  recalls  that  on  the  North  and  Middle  Tem- 
ples in  the  Forum  Holitorium  at  Rome.  This  treatment  Del- 
brueck  refers  to  Hellenistic  influence  from  Asia  Minor.227 

The  columns  stand  upon  pedestals  that  are  only  paralleled  by 
those  beneath  the  two  central  columns  at  the  entrance  of  the 
so-called  Diocletian  Basilica  at  Palmyra.228  Behind  the  ruins 
are  fragments  of  a  large  conch  which  may  have  covered  an  apse 
at  the  end  of  the  cella. 

DMER 

Temple f229  A  study  of  the  architecture  of  Syria,  especially 
from  the  fourth  century  on,  shows  a  development  to  forms 
most  strikingly  "Romanesque."  The  Temple?  at  Dmer  in  the 
Hauran,  dated  245  A.D.  by  an  inscription  of  Philip  the  Arab,230 

22 


shows  the  beginning  of  this  evolution,  still  under  the  influence 
of  the  Hellenistic  style.  Dmer,  on  the  site  of  ancient  Admedera, 
lies  to  the  east  of  Damascus.  The  building  under  discussion 
has  been  fully  published  by  Mr.  Butler. 

The  plan,231  so  far  as  Syria  is  concerned,  is  unique.  The 
recessed  portal,  flanked  by  "tower-like  chambers,"  suggests  the 
portal  of  the  Temple  of  Baal  Samin  at  Si.232  The  Syrian  Hel- 
lenistic forms  are  more  or  less  retained  in  the  pilasters,  the 
entablature,  the  gable  front,  and  the  portal  arch. 

The  capitals  of  the  pilasters  are  of  the  composite  order.  A 
careful  examination  of  the  photograph233  from  which  the  illus- 
tration on  page  402  of  Mr.  Butler's  work  was  made,  shows  that 
they  follow  the  Asia  Minor-Hellenistic  form,234  although  the 
leaves  are  uncut.  The  abacus  is  left  free  without  any  intru- 
sion of  the  fillet  that  joins  the  volutes.  The  latter  are  of  the 
Ionic  form  as  found  in  the  Aizanoi  type,  and  not  the  Corin- 
thian volutes  as  found  at  Mushennef . 

The  portal  arch  is  heavier  than  any  that  we  have  seen,  and  its 
mouldings  are  returned  across  the  capitals  of  the  piers,  as  in 
the  later  churches.235  The  hood  moulding  above  the  profiled 
archivolt  and  the  cornices  show  the  earliest  instances  of  con- 
soles in  the  Hauran.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that,  according  to 
Delbrueck,  the  console  cornice,  as  used  at  Rome,  probably  goes 
back  to  a  Syrian  origin.236  Above  the  narrow  pulvinated  frieze 
is  a  plain  band  that  might  have  been  carved  with  dentils,  which 
are  found  on  the  entablature  within  the  cella.  The  whole  en- 
tablature is  broken  out  "en  ressaut"  above  each  pilaster ;  earlier 
instances  of  this  in  Syria  are  the  Propylaea  at  Dj crash237  and 
at  Amman,237  both  Antonine,  and  the  central  triumphal  arch  at 
Bosra.238  The  pilasters  within  the  cella  have  caps  "of  good 
Corinthian  style."239  Unfortunately  they  are  not  illustrated  in 
the  publication.  The  roofing,  according  to  Mr.  Butler,  seems  to 
have  been  of  wood.239 

To  sum  up  then:  in  this  monument,  dated  200  years  after 
Herod  Agrippa  I  became  the  Roman  representative  in  the 
Hauran,  there  are  still  strong  indications  of  the  Hellenistic 
architecture  that  Syria  held  throughout  her  length  and  breadth. 
Of  Roman  influence,  as  in  plan,  or  in  florid  decoration  that 
prevailed  at  this  time,240  there  are  no  traces,  except  possibly 
the  treatment  of  the  entablature  "en  ressaut."241  On  the  other 
hand,  there  are  even  more  than  the  beginnings  of  the  new  step 
in  architectural  development  that  was  to  reach  fullness  in  the 

23 


next  three  centuries.  At  the  time  when  the  Hellenistic  influ- 
ence finally  waned,  when,  if  ever,  we  might  expect  the  influ- 
ence of  Rome,  it  is  not  the  Imperial  architecture  of  Italy  that 
appears  in  this  distant  province,  but  an  independent  native  de- 
velopment, growing  out  of  the  foundations  that  were  laid  in 
the  continuous  survival  of  Hellenistic  forms,  decoration,  and 
construction.  And  finally,  there  was  such  power  in  the  artistic 
spirit  that  it  was  able  to  anticipate  the  Occident,  in  its  con- 
structions, by  nearly  half  a  century. 

PALMYRA 

Note.  In  treating  the  monuments  of  Palmyra  it  has  been 
necessary  to  go  into  detail  even  more  than  in  the  case  of  the 
rest  of  Syria.  In  spite  of  the  magnificence  of  the  ruins  there 
is  but  one  publication,  that  of  Wood.  While  his  plates,  espe- 
cially with  his  restorations,  are  not  always  trustworthy,  and 
the  cross-references  leave  much  to  be  desired,  only  the  highest 
praise  can  be  given  to  so  magnificent  a  work,  accomplished 
under  such  difficulties  and  long  before  archaeology  as  a  science 
was  born.  Of  the  work  of  E.  Berthone  in  Palmyra  during  the 
summer  of  1895  only  a  preliminary  report  has  been  published, 
by  E.  Guillaume  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  CXLII,  1897, 
and  a  report  on  the  inscriptions  by  Chabot  in  the  Journal 
Asiatique,  XII (I),  1898.  Reference  will  also  be  made  to  the 
skeleton  report  of  the  German  Expedition  excavating  at 
Baalbec. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  spelling  "Bel"  has  been  retained 
in  the  great  temple.  This  has  been  done  both  out  of  deference 
to  Wood  and  also  to  avoid  confusion  with  the  eastern  and 
smaller  temple  of  Baal  or  Baal  Samin. 

BEL  TEMPLE  AND  PERIBOLOS 

The  Temple  of  Bel  The  oldest  parts  of  the  temple242  are 
the  cella  walls  that  run  north  and  south,  and  the  peristyle.  The 
plan  of  the  cella  must  have  been  originally  of  Greek  form.  Its 
proportions  are  classic,  as  those  of  the  peristyle,  with  eight 
columns  at  front  and  back,  and  fifteen  on  the  sides.  The 
present  form  of  the  cella,  with  a  side  entrance  and  windows  in 
the  side  walls,243  and  the  walling  up  of  pronaos  and  epinaos,  is 
due  to  an  alteration.244  Had  the  intention  been,  at  the  time 
the  peristyle  was  built,  to  provide  a  side  entrance,  the  columns 

24 


would  not  have  been  so  disposed  that  one  occurred  directly 
opposite  the  middle  of  the  cella  wall.  As  it  was,  when  the 
change  was  made,  one  column  had  to  be  removed  from  the  flank 
to  provide  an  entrance  which  was  necessarily  "off  center." 
That  this  was  felt  to  be  a  necessity,  and  was  not  a  choice,  is 
clearly  shown  by  the  position  of  the  windows  in  the  eastern 
cella  wall.  Unhampered  by  the  necessary  position  of  an  en- 
trance, they  are  spaced  symmetrically.  It  may  be  noted  here 
that  the  exedrae  at  either  end  of  the  cella,  marked  A  and  B  in 
the  plan,  were  not  a  part  of  the  original  plan,  and,  when  intro- 
duced, did  not  serve  as  adyta  as  Puchstein  has  asserted.245  An 
examination  of  the  photograph  of  the  American  Archaeological 
Expedition246  will  show  this,  for  the  central  compartment  is 
only  a  vestibule,  with  side  chambers  opening  out  of  it.  Further 
examination  will  show  the  patched  and  hasty  character  of  the 
construction.  At  the  sides  of  the  doors  the  decoration  above  the 
pediments  of  the  slender  niches  is  not  the  same,  and  above  them 
are  placed  massive  pilaster  bases,  probably  taken  from  the  old 
west  wall  of  the  peribolos  when  it  was  rebuilt  in  175  A.D?24T 
or  else,  and  this  is  more  probable,  during  the  repairs  after  the 
sack  by  Aurelian  in  273.  The  florid  ornamentation  of  the  ceil- 
ings of  the  vestibules  also  points  to  a  late  date  for  their  con- 
struction.248 

We  must  now  leave  the  temple  for  a  moment  and  turn  to  the 
peribolos,  where  we  have  our  first  definite  evidence  for  date. 

The  Peribolos.  The  epigraphical  evidence  for  the  dating  of 
the  peribolos  is  as  follows.  For  convenience  reference  will  be 
made  to  the  inscriptions  by  number,  and  they  are  arranged  in 
chronological  order.  Those  called  bilingual  have  both  Greek 
and  Palmyrene  text. 
No.  I  10  A.D=32i  Seleucid  Era.  Bilingual,  found,  with 

No.  2  on  a  stone,  in  the  interior  of  the  temenos,  by 

Prince   Abamelek  Lazarew.      Published   by   M.   de 

Vogue.249   The  purpose  of  the  stone  is  not  clear.    Dr. 

Littmann  has  suggested250  that  it  was  placed  under  a 

niche  in  the  temple  wall. 
No.     2     17    A.D.=328    Sel.    Bilingual,    on    same    stone    as 

above.251 
No.     3    21  A.D.=333  Sel.  Palmyrene.     In  situ  on  column 

bracket  of  temenos  portico,252  published  by  Euting.253 
No.     4    28/29  A.D.=340  Sel.  Palmyrene.    In  situ  on  bracket 

of  column  number  four  from  north  end  of  eastern 
25 


portico.     Discovered,  together  with  No.  5,  by  Litt- 
mann,  and  published  in  AAES  IV.254 

No.     5     70/71    A.D.=382    Sel.255    Bilingual.256      In   situ   on 
bracket  of  column  number  three  from  north  end  of 
eastern  portico,  and  second  to  the  south  from  No.  3. 
No.     6     1 08  A.D. — /|  20  Sel.257  Bilingual.  In  situ  on  bracket  of 
column  number  ten  from  west  end  of  southern  portico. 
No.     7     118  A.D. — ^29  Sel.  Palmyrene.258    In  situ  on  bracket 
of  column  number  twenty  one   from  west  end  of 
southern  portico. 
No.     8     127  A.D. — 439  Sel.  Bilingual.259      In  situ  on  bracket 

of  column  in  southern  portico. 

No.     9     142  A.D. — 453  Sel.  Greek.   In  situ  on  bracket  of  col- 
umn in  portico,  discovered  by  Wood.260 
No.  10     167/168  A.D. — 479  Sel.  Greek.    In  situ  on  bracket 

of  column  in  portico,  discovered  by  Wood.261 
No.  II     175  A.D. — /\S6  Sel.  Bilingual.    "In  middle  of  south- 
ern side  wall  of  propylaea."262 

Note  A. — Puchstein  also  mentions  an  inscription  of  150 
A.D.263 

Note  B. — Littmann  has  mentioned  the  inscriptions  No.  I 
and  No.  2  of  de  Vogue264  as  belonging  to  the  temple.265  This 
is  incorrect.  The  description  given  by  de  Vogue,  "sur  une 
grande  colonne  isolee  au  nord  du  temple  du  Soleil"  and  "sur 
une  grande  colonne  renversee,  qui  faisait  pendante  a  la  prece- 
dente,  au  sud-ouest  du  temple,"  do  not  indicate  that  these 
columns  were  in  the  temenos.  On  the  contrary  they  stood  at 
some  distance,  as  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Greek  text  of 
No.  2  is  identical  with  that  of  Wood,  op.  cit.,  Marmor.  Palm. 
XXI,  which  he  found  on  the  isolated  column,  marked  30  in  the 
plan,  Tab.  II,  at  a  distance  of  over  a  quarter  mile  from  the 
peribolos.  The  two  columns  that  bore  the  inscriptions  in 
question  were  those  marked  28  and  30,  respectively,  in  the 
same  plan,  and,  if  Wood's  plan  is  trustworthy,  were  equidis- 
tant from  the  temple  itself. 

Note  C.—lt  has  been  suggested  by  Mr.  H.  C.  Butler  that 
there  may  be  reason  to  believe  that  Wood  was  wrong,  that  de 
Vogue  followed  him,  and  that  Littmann  is  correct.  It  is  un- 
fortunately impossible  to  verify  this  at  present. 

The  Peribolos,  con.266  The  idea  of  a  walled  peribolos  goes 
back  to  an  early  Egyptian  origin.267  Later  on  in  Greece  there 
are  various  instances  of  enclosures  of  sacred  sites,268  but  they 

26 


contain  more  than  one  shrine.  Such  are  the  "altis"  at  Olym- 
pia269  and  the  peribolos  of  the  Olympieion  at  Athens.270 
.  In  the  Hellenistic  East,  however,  a  single  temple  is  fre- 
quently surrounded  by  a  walled  peribolos.  This  is  the  case 
with  the  Temple  of  Baal  Samin  at  Si,271  the  Temple  of  Jupiter 
at  Aizanoi,272  the  Artemis  Temple  at  Dj  crash273  and  the  Tem- 
ple of  Aphrodite  at  Aphrodisias.274  At  Amman  there  are 
remains  of  a  great  peribolos  upon  the  acropolis,275  but  the 
building  within  is  completely  ruined.  Holtzinger276  adds  the 
"'sun  temple"  at  Baalbec,  a  statement  not  confirmed  by  the  re- 
port of  the  German  Expedition277  unless  he  considers  the  en- 
closed court  in  front  of  the  temple  a  peribolos.  He  lists  also  a 
temple  at  Djemila  in  Algiers.278 

In  the  West,  on  the  other  hand,  instances  are  rare.  At 
Pompeii,  the  Temple  of  Apollo  with  its  peribolos279  dates  from 
the  Tufa  period280  of  "untrammeled  Hellenistic  influence."281 
At  Rome  there  are  but  two  examples  of  a  walled  peribolos. 
That  of  the  Portico  of  the  Argonauts282  about  the  Temple  of 
Neptune,  was  built  in  25  B.C.283  At  the  time  of  the  Saturnalia 
it  served  as  a  bazaar.284  This  and  the  testimony  of  ancient 
writers285  concerning  the  other  example,  the  Portico  of  the 
Danaids286  about  the  Temple  of  Apollo  on  the  Palatine,  finished 
in  26  B.C.,287  substantiate  Lanciani's  observation  as  to  their 
mundane  character.288 

It  is  necessary  to  add  the  examples  of  the  Iseum  et  Sera- 
peum,289  in  direct  imitation  of  Egypt,  and  Aurelian's  Temple 
of  the  Sun290  with  its  Syrian  prototypes.  All  other  instances 
of  temple  enclosures  in  Rome  are  simply  open  colonnades  with- 
out walls,291  another  case  of  Rome's  altered  treatment  of  an 
idea  borrowed  from  the  East.  It  is  well  worth  noting  that  the 
earliest  one  of  these,  that  about  the  temples  of  Jupiter  Stator 
and  of  Juno  Regina,  was  built  by  a  Greek  architect,  Hermo- 
dorus  of  S alarms,  in  149  B.C.292 

The  Peribolos  Wall.  The  exterior  of  the  peribolos  wall293 
was  broken  by  pilasters,  evenly  spaced  and  carrying  a  complete 
entablature.  Between  each  of  these,  on  the  north,  south,  and 
east,  were  windows,  crowned  by  a  gable.294  The  western  front 
was  built  much  higher  and  the  spaces  between  the  pilasters 
were  left  quite  plain.295  This  construction  was  continued  on 
the  north  and  south  for  about  seventy  feet.296  On  the  inter- 
ior of  the  peribolos  the  west  side  has  a  single  colonnade.  On 
the  other  three  sides  the  portico  had  a  double  row  of  columns. 

27 


The  porch  of  the  entrance  at  the  west  had  been  destroyed 
before  Wood  made  his  drawings.297  Of  his  fourth  plate,  then, 
we  may  consider  only  the  wall  in  its  entirety,  and  its 
decorations. 

The  interior  of  the  wall  on  the  north,  south,  and  east  is 
precisely  like  the  exterior.298  That  of  the  western  wall,  how- 
ever, and  of  its  continuations  on  the  north  and  south,  has  a 
double  row  of  niches.299 

The  Peribolos  Colonnades.  It  is  unfortunate  that  we  have 
no  detailed  illustration  of  the  order  of  the  columns  on  the 
north,  south,  and  east.  Nor  can  we  judge  by  the  analogy  of 
the  pilasters  on  the  outside  of  the  wall  which  was  undoubtedly 
built  at  the  same  time.  For,  here  again,  our  illustrations  fail 
us,  except  on  a  very  small  scale.300  Still  we  can  judge  from 
this  of  the  severity  of  the  decoration  which  is  carried  out  in  the 
windows,  of  trapezoidal  form,  crowned  by  gables  with  raking 
cornices.301  In  striking  contrast  to  these  are  the  decorations  of 
the  entrance  in  the  west  wall,  a  double  row  of  niches  and  doors, 
some  with  profiled  archivolts,  conches,302  and  elaborately  carved 
mouldings,303  an  essentially  Eastern  scheme.304  The  frieze  of 
the  north,  south  and  east  walls,  both  inside  and  out,  seems  to 
have  been  undecorated.305  While  this  was  copied  on  the  ex- 
terior of  the  new  west  front,306  on  the  interior  there  was  an 
entablature  very  characteristic  of  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.307 

Puchstein,  on  the  evidence  of  the  inscriptions,  that  we  have 
numbered  6,  8  and  9,  and  the  one  mentioned  in  Note  A,  has 
admitted  that  "jedenfalls  unter  Hadrian  schon  ein  Teil  des 
Peribolos  fertig  war."308  We  have  besides,  inscriptions  of  21 
A.D.,309  28/29  A.D.,310  and  70/71  A.D.311  These  are  on  con- 
soles that  could  not  have  been  fastened  to  the  shafts,  after  use 
in  another  location,  for  each  is  part  of  the  column  drum,  or 
rather,  a  projection  from  the  drum  itself,  necessarily  a  part  of 
the  colonnade  at  the  time  of  erection.  From  time  to  time,  then, 
as  occasion  offered,  inscriptions  were  cut  and  statues  set  up, 
as  we  shall  see  in  the  case  of  the  street  colonnades. 

The  Peribolos,  then,  must  have  been  erected  not  later  than 
the  beginning  of  our  era,312  and  most  probably  at  the  time 
when  the  change  in  the  temple  cella  was  made  and  a  door 
placed  between  two  columns  of  the  peristyle.  For,  it  cer- 
tainly could  not  have  been  built  very  long  before  the  change  in 
the  temple  was  made  so  as  to  have  an  entrance  opposite  to  the 

28 


gate  in  the  western  side  of  the  court.  This  is  entirely  sup- 
ported by  an  examination  of  the  details  of  the  temple  altera- 
tions, particularly  in  the  case  of  the  mouldings  of  the  door  that 
was  set  in  the  middle  of  the  peristyle.  The  jambs,  beginning  on 
the  inside,  are  decorated  with  three  fasciae,  each  bordered  by 
a  fillet.  The  inner  fascia  is  carved  with  a  continuous  laurel  or 
olive  leaf  ornament,  the  next  with  a  grape  vine,313  a  large  leaf 
alternating  with  a  huge  bunch  of  grapes.  The  third  has  rin- 
ceaux  of  a  plant  not  easily  identified.  Outside  of  these  comes 
first  a  cyma  recta  with  the  leaf  and  dart,  then  an  egg  and  dart 
on  an  ovolo,  and  finally  an  anthemion  on  a  cavetto.314 

Now  such  a  combination  of  Greek  and  Oriental  motifs  is 
characteristic  of  only  one  architectural  period  in  Syria,  the 
period  in  which  were  built  the  temple  at  Suweda315  and  those 
of  Baal  Samin316  and  Dushara  at  Si.317  These  are  examples 
from  the  Hauran,  it  is  true,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that 
after  85  B.C.,  when  the  Nabataeans  defeated  Antiochus  XII, 
they  took  possession  of  Damascus  and  Coele- Syria.318  Now 
Palmyra  is  equally  distant  from  Antioch  and  the  Hauran ;  so  it 
is  not  surprising  to  find  traces  of  this  southern  influence  at 
this  time  in  the  midst  of  all  that  the  city  must  have  drawn  from 
the  Syrian  capital. 

The  great  door  of  the  temple  enclosure  at  Si,319  almost  purely 
Oriental  in  its  ornament,  has  just  such  naturalistic  forms  as  this 
peristyle  door  of  the  Temple  of  Bel.  On  the  archivolt  above 
the  door  occurs  much  the  same  grape  vine  motif,  and  we  find 
this  again  on  the  inner  jamb  of  the  door  of  the  Temple  of  Baal 
Samin  at  Si.320  All  this  simply  confirms  our  hypothesis  that 
the  alterations  of  the  Bel  Temple  cella  took  place  at  the  same 
time  as  the  building  of  the  peribolos,  that  is,  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  first  century  A.D. 

The  Temple  Cella  and  Peristyle.  Still  older  than  the  oldest 
parts  of  the  peribolos  are  the  cella  and  peristyle  of  the  tem- 
ple.321 The  capitals  have  unfortunately  long  since  lost  their 
decoration.  For,  as  the  holes  in  the  bells  show,  this  was  of 
metal,  fastened  to  an  inverted,  truncated,  cone  shaped  core. 
Perhaps  this  same  use  of  metal  occured  in  the  interior  of  the 
temple  cella  at  Dj crash,  called  Bet  et-Tai.322  The  decoration 
of  the  entablature  is  severe  for  the  Hellenistic  period.  The 
ornament  of  the  frieze  is  a  succession  of  garlands  held  by 
winged  figures.323  The  proportions  of  the  entablature  are  very 
nearly  those  of  the  Greek  Temple  of  Vesta  at  Tivoli,  together 

29 


with  which  they  are  given  below,  in  comparison  with  those  of 
the  Temple  of  Vespasian  at  Rome. 

Bel  T.  Vesta  T.      Vespasian  T. 

Capital  height  1.12  i.oo  1.23 

Architrave  height  0.5  0.53  0.64 

Field  of  frieze  0.5  0.66  0.7 

Cornice   height  0.62  0.6  0.8 

Entablature  1.7  1.7  2.2 

The  common  unit  is  the  lower  diameter. 

The  frieze  about  the  cella  was  undecorated,  and  convex  in 
profile,324  as  was  also  the  case  in  the  Temple  at  Srir  of  116 
A.D.325  Friezes  with  curved  profiles  occur  in  Greece  as  early 
as  the  fourth  century  in  the  Tholos326  and  in  the  Theatre327 
at  Epidauros.  A  later  example  is  that  from  the  Theatre  at 
Aizanoi.328  In  Rome,  however,  instances  are  rare,329  the  ear- 
liest being  the  pulvinated  friezes  of  the  Portico  of  the  Argo- 
nauts330 and  of  the  Temple  of  Neptune,331  both  dating  probably 
from  the  restoration  under  Hadrian.332 

The  Western  Peribolos  Wall  and  Entrance.  The  newest  part 
of  all  the  temple  precinct,  with  the  exception  of  the  exedrae  in 
the  cella,  is  the  western  peribolos  wall.  We  have  already  men- 
tioned as  No.  n,  the  inscription  of  175  A.D.  from  the  western 
wall.  Certainly  the  forms  and  ornaments  of  the  entrance  are 
later  than  any  of  those  we  have  discussed,  and  are  very  similar 
to  others  that  we  have  seen  belonging  to  the  latter  half  of  the 
second  century. 

The  plan333  shows  a  central  intercolumniation  of  13'  4".  It 
would  have  been  impossible  to  span  this  with  anything  but  an 
arch,  as  has  already  been  suggested.334  This  is  just  what  might 
be  expected,  considering  the  other  examples  of  arched  entab- 
lature in  Syria.335  Yet  the  use  of  the  arch,  known  in  Palmyra 
at  least  as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,336  did 
not  find  as  ready  acceptance  and  as  free  use  as  in  the  Hauran. 
The  niches  at  Atil  showed  a  round  head  with  a  conch,337  and 
at  Musmiyeh  a  full  entablature  was  carried  above  the  conch  ;338 
but  in  the  niches  of  Palmyra  a  horizontal  entablature  is  carried 
either  above  or  below  the  archivolt.339 

We  have  unfortunately  no  figures  for  the  lower  diameter  of 
the  shafts  in  the  colonnade,  and  lack  of  photographs  on  any- 
thing like  the  necessary  scale  prevents  such  a  discussion  of  the 
Corinthian  capitals  as  Wiegand  has  given  to  those  from  Baal- 
bee.340  On  the  other  hand  certain  marked  distinctions  between 

30 


the  Greek  and  Roman  forms  of  the  Corinthian  are  well  known, 
and  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  capitals  of  the  western  peri- 
bolos  colonnade  approach  the  Greek  much  more  closely  than 
the  Roman.  The  bell  of  the  capital  is  not  completely  masked  by 
the  volutes  and  leaves,  and  the  second  row  of  leaves  is  not 
twice  as  high  as  the  first.341  But  a  complete  masking,  with  the 
upper  row  of  leaves  double  the  height  of  the  lower,  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  Roman  form,  as  shown  in  the  examples  from 
the  temples  of  Mars  Ultor,342  Vespasian,343  and  Castor.344  In- 
deed Wood's  drawing  makes  the  capitals  compare  not  unfav- 
orably with  those  from  the  Olympieion  at  Athens.345  The  flat 
section  of  the  leaves  shown  in  his  plate  must  not  be  considered. 
In  the  case  of  the  Jupiter  Temple  at  Baalbec,346  in  the  cella 
capitals,  he  shows  a  similarly  flat  section  which  the  photographic 
evidence  of  Puchstein347  contradicts.  Furthermore,  Berthone 
says  the  acanthus  was  of  the  Greek  type  and  not  like  that  at 
Baalbec.348  It  is  interesting  to  recall,  in  this  connection, 
Rivoira's  statement  about  Corinthian  capitals  in  the  East,  as- 
suming them  to  be,  of  course,  examples  of  Roman  workman- 
ship. He  says  :  "nei  tempi  anzidetti — 128  to  193 — i  migliori 
capitelli  vogliono  esser  cercati  nella  Siria."349  On  the  other 
hand  Delbrueck  has  said  that  we  must  reckon  with  the  possi- 
bility that  the  Corinthian  order  was  Syrian.350 

The  frieze  above  the  colonnade  has  a  flat  profile.351  That 
on  the  peribolos  wall  is  convex,352  and  is  ornamented  with 
acanthus  rinceaux.  Yet,  even  if  erected  in  175,  the  acanthus 
does  not  occur  with  stalk  completely  covered  by  leaves,  as  at 
Rome  in  the  Trajan  Forum,353  and  later  in  the  "Frontispiece  of 
Nero."354  Again,  in  the  palmettes  of  the  sima,  we  find  the 
distinction  from  purely  Roman  types.  They  have  not  the 
leaves  sharply  pointed  at  the  ends  that  the  architecture  of 
Rome  shows,355  as,  for  example,  in  the  Trajan  Forum356  and 
the  Agrippa  Baths,357  but  leaves  with  their  ends  rolled  over 
in  a  flat,  snail-like  form.  This  is  the  universal  form  at 
Palmyra,  and  of  very  great  frequency.358 

Summary.     We  have,  then,  four  periods  of  architectural 
activity  on  the  site  of  the  Bel  Temple. 
I.     Not  later  than  end  of  first  century,  B.C. 

Temple  cella  and  peristyle. 
II.     Not  later  than  21  A.D. 

Rearrangement  of  cella ;  addition  of  door  in  peristyle 

and  building  of  peribolos. 
31 


III.     175  A.D. 

Rebuilding  of  west  wall  of  peribolos.  To  this,  or 
perhaps  to  a  fourth  period  under  Aurelian,  belong  the 
exedrae  in  the  temple  cella.  The  latter  are  the  only 
remains  that  can  be  assigned  to  this  last  period. 
Aurelian's  letter  to  Bassus  expressly  states  that  he 
desired  "templum — ad  earn  formam — quae  fuit, 
reddi"359  Such  repairs  as  he  made  then  must  have 
consisted  chiefly  in  setting  up  what  had  been  thrown 
down  in  the  sack  of  the  city. 

TOMBS 

In  the  Wadi  il-Kebur,  to  the  south-west  of  the  city,  are  the 
remains  of  many  tombs.360  Two  of  these  have  been  sufficiently 
preserved  to  warrant  their  publication ;  that  of  lamlichus  by  de 
Vogue,  and  that  of  Elabelos  by  Wood. 

Tomb  of  lamlichus361  83  A.D.  The  date  is  given  by  a 
bilingual  inscription.362  Both  this  and  the  following  tomb  are 
in  the  form  of  a  square  or  rectagular  tower.363  The  ornamental 
details  show  a  strong  classic  influence.  The  pilasters  between 
the  cubicula  of  the  first  storey  are  Corinthian,  as  are  those  of 
the  upper  niche  of  the  f  agaric.  The  door  with  moulded  jambs, 
crowned  by  a  pediment  carried  on  consoles,  is  Greek.  De  Vogue 
also  mentions  in  his  text  "sculptured  friezes,  and  coffered  ceil- 
ings with  heads  in  relief,"  probably  very  similar  to  the  carving 
of  the  soffit  of  the  side  door  in  the  west  wall  of  the  peribolos,364 
and  to  the  ceilings365  in  the  fully  classic  sepulchre  marked  'W 
in  Wood's  plan.366  For  all  such  later  examples  the  ceilings  of 
the  tomb  would  be  prototypes. 

Tomb  of  Elabelos367  103  A.D.  This  tomb,  dated368  twenty 
years  later  than  that  of  lamlichus,  shows  a  more  severe  f  agade, 
but  with  a  beautifully  profiled  archivolt  spanning  the  upper 
niche.  The  interior  has  beautifully  channeled  Corinthian  pi- 
lasters, crowned  by  a  severe  entablature,  on  the  sides ;  and  at 
the  end  opposite  the  door,  there  is  a  superimposed  order  of  en- 
gaged columns,  both  with  smooth  shafts,  the  lower  of  Corin- 
thian, and  the  upper  of  the  Ionic  order.  The  ceiling  was 
coffered  in  squares,  enclosing  two  reliefs,  of  Elabelos  and  his 
wife. 

CROSS  COLONNADE 

It  is  unfortunate  that  in  no  case  have  we  a  photograph  of  any 
column  from  which  a  particular  inscription  has  been  taken. 

32 


However,  since  the  consoles  on  which  the  inscriptions  were 
cut,  are  of  a  piece  with  the  drum  of  the  shaft,  it  is  evident 
that  a  colonnade  cannot  be  later  than  its  earliest  inscription, 
especially,  as  in  this  case,  when  there  are  inscriptions  covering 
a  continuous  series  of  years. 

The  photographs  of  the  American  Expedition369  show  part 
of  this  colonnade,  with  Corinthian  capitals  whose  leaves  have 
the  crisp  Greek  section. 

A  list  of  all  dated  inscriptions  from  the  colonnade,  complete 
so  far  as  we  know,  is  added. 

de  Vogue370  Wadd.371  C.I.G.  Location  Date 

8372  I29A.D. 

9  163 

10  2593  first  of  four  standing,  179 

with  double  consoles. 

11  2594  next  to  above  179 

12  2595  "     "      "  179 

13  2592          4506  179 
19                                                                                      23-  ?373 

EASTERN  TEMPLE  OF  BAAL  OR  BAAL  SAMIN 

The  inscription  on  a  column  of  the  pronaos,  dating  the  tem- 
ple,374 131  A.D.,  and  also  Hadrian's  journey  to  Palmyra,  are 
discussed  by  de  Vogue.375  It  may  be  added  that  the  space 
between  the  first  numeral  and  the  "vinculum"  of  the  second 
numeral  is  too  great  for  the  first  figure  of  the  date  to  be  a  five ; 
it  must  therefore  have  been  four,  thus  giving  the  year  442 
Seleucid  era,  or  131  A.D. 

Another  inscription,  in  very  poor  preservation,  is  found  on 
the  console  of  the  column  at  the  south-east  corner.  The  date 
is  incomplete ;  but  Lidzbarski,  on  the  basis  of  other  dated  in- 
scriptions containing  the  same  name,  has  restored  it  as  390  Sel. 
or  79  A.D.376  This  would  not  be  surprising  in  view  of  the 
character  of  the  architectural  details. 

The  Temple  is  tetrastyle,  prostyle,  with  one  column  on  the 
return.  Apparently  there  was  no  podium.  The  Attic  bases 
of  the  unfluted  Corinthian  shafts  rested  on  low  square  plinths. 
The  capitals,  about  i.i  lower  diameters  high,  have  leaves  of  the 
crisp  Greek  section.  The  entablature  is  simple.  The  frieze  is 
carved  with  acanthus  rinceaux,  without  any  projecting  heads 
or  other  additions.  Every  detail  in  fact  points  to  a  monument 

33 


executed  under  a  purely  Hellenistic  influence.  For  example, 
the  tendrils  of  the  acanthus  are  not  wholly  encased  in  leaves, 
as  in  the  Trajan  Forum  in  Rome.377  The  height  of  the  cornice, 
about  .72  lower  diameters,  is  considerably  less  than  that  of 
Roman  examples,378  and  the  whole  entablature,  about  2.14 
lower  diameters,  is  relatively  low.  The  mouldings  of  the  two 
windows,  set  high  in  the  cella  wall,  between  two  of  the  pilasters 
that  adorn  the  exterior,  are  simple.  The  form  of  the  windows 
themselves  is  trapezoidal,  as  in  the  early  parts  of  the  peribolos 
wall  of  the  Bel  Temple.  The  architectural  style,  then,  would 
seem  to  confirm  Lidzbarski's  opinion  as  to  the  date  of  the 
second  inscription  mentioned  above,  and  the  Temple  may  very 
well  belong  to  the  first  century  A.D. 

THE  NYMPHAEUM? 

The  so-called  Diocletian  basilica,  camp,  or  headquarters379 
stood  just  to  the  north  of  the  entrance  of  the  Wadi  il-Kebur, 
on  the  very  outskirts  of  the  city.  Owing  to  a  Latin  inscrip- 
tion380 on  a  broken  architrave  of  the  building,  it  has  always 
been  considered  a  work  of  Diocletian'  time,  despite  the  striking 
evidence  of  the  architecture  to  the  contrary.381 

Among  the  Palmyrene  inscriptions  of  de  Vogue,  he  gives 
one382  "grand  edifice  ruine,  qui  parait  avoir  ete  un  temple ;  au 
sud:ouest  de  la  grande  colonnade.  Sur  le  linteau."  Wood's 
plan  of  the  city  shows  but  one  such  ruin,  namely  that  of  the 
Diocletian  building.383  To  this  it  may  very  probably  have 
belonged,  and  as  it  was  on  a  lintel,  it  must  have  been  either 
from  the  cella  entrance  or  from  the  door  in  the  interior,  de 

Vogue  translates  the  inscription  as  follows:    " the  safety 

of that  of  his  children,  and  of  his  brothers, in  the  year 

46 — t these and  all  its  ornamentation,  with  his  money." 

It  is  evident  from  the  language  that  the  building  was  de- 
voted to  a  religious  use.  A  man  did  not  erect  civil  structures 
for  the  safety  of  his  family.  The  date  as  it  stands  in  the 
Palmyrene  text384  is  460,  which  is  the  year  148/149  of  our  era. 
Unfortunately  there  is  a  blank  after  the  date,  which  was 
probably  filled  by  the  name  of  the  month.  Yet,  even  if  more 
figures  had  originally  been  cut  there,  the  space  available  is 
such  that,  in  the  Palmyrene  notation,  at  the  maximum,  there 
could  not  have  been  more  than  a  twenty,  a  ten,  a  five,  and  four 
ones,  making  the  highest  possible  total,  499  Sel.  which  is 
187/188  A.D. 

34 


The  inscription  is  doubly  important.  For  it  not  only  confirms 
the  natural  conclusions  as  to  the  period  of  the  architecture,  but 
also,  by  its  text,  helps  to  determine  the  character  and  purpose  of 
the  building. 

The  plan  is  extraordinary,385  but  the  building  was  too  well 
preserved  when  Wood  examined  it  to  cause  any  doubt  of  its 
accuracy.386  Were  it  not  for  the  continuation  of  the  "nave"  or 
cella  between  the  colonnaded  wings,  it  would  have  a  strong 
resemblance  to  the  basilica  at  Colonia  luliae  Fanestri,  built  by 
Vitruvius.387  On  the  other  hand,  a  comparison  of  the  eleva- 
tions388 will  show  still  more  striking  differences.  The  singular 
plan  would  seem  to  indicate  a  special  temple  form  such  as  a 
Nymphaeum.389 

The  superstructure  stood  upon  a  high  podium,  approached 
by  sixteen  steps.  The  central  part  had  the  form  of  a  tetrastyle, 
prostyle  temple.  The  four  columns  of  the  entrance  stood  upon 
high  pedestals,  with  base  and  cap  mouldings.  These  are  car- 
ried as  a  continuous  base  course  beneath  the  columns  of  the 
'wings. 

The  Corinthian  capitals  are  slightly  less  than  a  lower  diame- 
ter in  height,390  a  proportion  that  no  Roman  example  shows.391 
The  leaves  have  the  crisp  Greek  'V  section,  as  even  the  small 
photograph  of  the  American  Expedition  will  show.392  In  place 
of  the  'flos'  on  the  abacus  there  is  a  small  bust,  probably  that 
of  the  founder.  The  entablature  is  quite  simple.  The  pulvi- 
nated  frieze  is  not  carved.393  The  sima  shows  the  palmette  in 
its  Greek  form.394  The  proportions  of  the  entablature  are  given 
below,  in  comparison  with  those  of  the  Athena  Temple  at 
Priene,395  and  those  of  the  Ionic  order  of  the  Baths  of  Diocle- 
tian.396 

Baths  of 

Nymphaeum?  Temple,  Priene        Diocletian 

architrave  .62  .78  1.12 

field  of  frieze  .35  .5  .93 

cornice  .7  .92  1.53 

entablature  1.6  2.2  3.6 

The  common  unit  is  the  lower  diameter. 

The  decoration  of  the  front  cella  wall  is  richer  than  we  have 
seen  at  Palmyra,  for  the  building,  dating  from  the  latter  half 
of  the  second  century,  is  later  than  any  that  we  have  consid- 
ered. On  the  panels  of  the  pilasters  at  the  corners  of  the 

35 


cella,397  and  on  the  side  of  the  jambs  of  the  great  cella  door,398 
the  grape  vine  is  exquisitely  carved.  The  bay  leaf  occurs  fre- 
quently, as  on  the  cavetto  of  the  abacus  of  the  capitals,399  and 
on  the  ovolo  mouldings  of  the  great  door400  and  of  the  upper 
niches.401  Beside  the  four  niches  in  the  pronaos  wall,  placed 
one  above  the  other  in  pairs  beside  the  great  door,  the  plan402 
and  the  view  of  the  ruins403  show  three  niches  on  the  inner 
wall  of  the  apse  that  terminated  the  cella.  The  exterior  of  the 
latter  might  be  called  octagonal,  but  reference  to  the  plan  will 
be  better  than  any  description.  Within  the  cella  a  broad  arch 
opened  into  the  apse.  Its  archivolt  was  profiled  with  the  same 
mouldings  as  those  of  the  architrave,  which  was  carried  around 
the  cella  by  Corinthian  pilasters,  and  also  continued  around  the 
apse.  The  mouldings  of  the  archivolt  are  brought  down  upon 
this  half  entablature  and  do  not  continue  it  as  in  the  case  of 
an  arched  intercolumniation.  The  vaulting  seems  to  have  been 
of  stone. 

Now  in  all  the  details  of  the  building,  there  is  nothing  to 
suggest  the  massive  forms  with  florid  decoration  of  the  archi- 
tecture of  Diocletion's  time.  We  have  only  to  compare  his 
work  at  Spalato,404  the  Baths  in  Rome  that  bear  his  name,405 
or  the  Basilica  of  Maxentius406  to  realize  how  impossible  it  is 
that  this  building  should  have  been  constructed  during  his 
reign.  Though  we  only  possess  examples  from  this  period, 
carried  out  on  an  immense  scale,  their  details  suffice  for  the 
comparison.  The  altered  proportions,  the  florid  capitals  and 
ornament  in  general  are  of  a  spirit  and  period  totally  different 
from  that,  still  charged  with  Hellenistic  influence,  in  which  the 
Nymphaeum  ?  was  built. 

The  emperor's  only  connection  with  it  was  in  utilizing  a 
monument  that  had  been  standing  more  than  a  century,  as  his 
headquarters. 

GRAND  COLONNADE 

Colonnaded  streets  were  a  feature  in  the  Greek  cities  of  the 
East,  made  necessary  because  of  the  climate.407  The  line  of 
columns  at  Palmyra  extended  more  than  1500  meters,  south- 
east and  north-west,  from  the  "arch  of  triumph"  near  the 
Temple  of  Bel  to  a  point  opposite  the  valley  of  the  tombs, 
where  doubtless  there  was  a  city  gate. 

Rivoira  has  referred  to  this  colonnade  as  of  about  the  third 
century  A.D.,408  but  it  belongs  by  no  means  to  that  period.  We 

36 


"have  already  seen  in  the  cross  colonnade  that  the  inscriptions 
demand  a  construction  at  least  as  early  as  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century.409  While  but  two  inscriptions  with  assured 
-dates  of  that  century  have  been  found  on  the  consoles  of  the 
Grand  Colonnade,  they  are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  its  con- 
struction, if  after  that  of  the  smaller  colonnande,  must  have 
followed  close  upon  it.  Furthermore,  the  cutting  of  honorary 
inscriptions  and  the  erection  of  statues  upon  the  brackets  did 
not  necessarily  begin  as  soon  as  the  columns  were  in  place. 

A  complete  list,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  the  dated  inscriptions 
follows  : 

deVogue4™    Wadd4^ 

Wood"*            c.I.G.                  Location  Date 

On  back  of  same  drum  127  A.D.413 

as  next  or  327414 

2591                    Western  part  158 

6                      2596                   Next  above  193 

2597                    First  to  east  with  insc.  224/225 

15           IV  ,9  2598         4483   East   part   betw.    second  arcade 

and  tetrapylon  242/243 

4415           ,10  2599         4490  Near  center  247 


22  V.n  2600 

17  VI,  12  26bl      4484  254 

7         VII,  13  2603         4486  257/258 

23  2602  Beside  deV  No.  22  258 

20  ,14  2604         4495   Near  deV  No.  25  258/259 

18  2605  East  part  beside  deV  No.  17  259 

24  X,i9  2607         4496  262 

26o6a«6  Near  deV  No.  27  262/268 

254"  26o6  Near  deV  No.  20  262 

26*18   vill,i6  2610  4499  264 

26o8419  4497    East  part,  s.e.  of  deV  No.  26  265 

27  IX,  17  2609  4498  267 

28  *•  Near  center  to  left  271 

29  2611  Beside  last  and  deV  No.  23    271 

The  best  illustrations  by  which  to  judge  of  the  capitals,  are 
Bonfils,  photo.  No.  391,  or  No.  428  of  the  American  Expedi- 
tion. They  show  not  only  the  crisp,  'V  shaped  section  of  the 
acanthus,  characteristic  of  Greeek  work,  but  also  that  the 
"eyes"  formed  between  two  leaves,  lie  quite  away  from  the 
central  stem.  This  also  is  a  Greek  characteristic,  as  compari- 
son with  Roman  examples  will  show.420 

In  the  course  of  the  colonnade  are  set  arches421  that  must 
have  been  constructed  at  the  same  time.  All  have  archivolts, 

37 


profiled  with  three  fasciae  to  correspond  to  the  architrave  on 
the  columns.  They  spring  from  an  impost  block,  similarly 
profiled,  that  rests  upon  a  low  pier  with  a  Corinthian  cap.  This 
is  the  logical  outcome  of  a  construction  such  as  that  in  the 
springing  of  the  apse  arch  of  the  Nymphaeum. 


d8 


NOTES 

INTRODUCTION 

1  P.  184. 

2  P.  185. 

3  As  Puchstein,  in  Jhb.,  XVII,  1902,  p.  no. 

4  Butler,  Arch,  p.  342. 

5  Puchstein,  op.  cit.,  pp.  109-110. 
6Appianus,  Bel.  Civ.  lib.  V. 

7  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  342. 
8Delbrueck,  II,  pp.  in,  112,  176. 

9  Diehl,  Manuel  d'Art  Bysantin,  p.  22. 

10  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  48. 

11  Cf.  temples  of  Vesta  at  Tivoli,  and  of  Minerva  at  Assisi ;  and  see 
Ddbrueck,  D.  T.,  p.  26. 

12  See  on  frieze  of  western  peribolos  wall  at  Palmyra,  p.  31,  and 
Wood  tab.  XI. 

13  There  is  one  exception,  the  eastern  Temple  of  Baal  at  Palmyra. 

14  Modillions  are  found,  however,  at  Dj  crash,  Philadelphia,  Amman 
and  in  other  instances. 

ARAK  IL-EMIR 

« de  Vogue,  Temple  de  Jerusalem,  pp.  38-43  pis.  XXXIV-XXXV. 

16  Irby  and  Mangles,  Travels  in  Egypt  and  Nubia,  Syria  and  the  Holy 
Land,  p.  146.  See  also  Josephus,  Antiq.  Jud.,  XII,  iv,  n;  De  Saulcy, 
Voyage  en  Terre  Sainte,  pp.  211-235;  Conder,  Survey  of  Eastern  Pales- 
tine, pp.  65-87.  For  further  references  see  Butler,  op.  cit.,  p.  25. 

"  PUAES  II,  AI,  pp.  1-19. 

18  P.  &  C,  V,  pi.  XI.  Cf.  the  enameled  brick  decoration  in  the  harem 
at  Khorsabad,  P.  &  C.,  II,  pi.  XV. 

19  Magnesia,  p.  127 ;  date,  p.  22. 

20  Butler,    op.    cit.,   p.    10.      Examples    at    Rome    may   be    found    in 
Stadium  on  the  Palatine;  Library  on  the  Palatine;  Atrium  Vestae; 
Aediculae  Vestae;   Temple   of  Antoninus   and   Faustina;   Temple   of 
Saturn  (in  some  cases). 

21  Priene,  p.  92.     Magnesia,  p.  135. 

22  Op.  cit.,  p.  10. 

23  Cf.  propylaea  at  Magnesia,  Tholos  and  Theatre  at  Epidauros ;  all 
of  these  show  this  in  moderation,  while  the  portico  of  Athena  Polias  at 
Pergamon,  like  the  Temple  of  Fortuna  Virilis  at  Rome,  has  a  decided 
overhang. 

24  Butler,  op.  cit.,  ill.  5,  6,  frag.  No.  I. 

25  Marquand,  fig.  8r. 
26Marquand,  fig.  83. 

27  For  other  instances  see  Jhb.  1914,  p.  56  and  note  I. 

39 


28Delbrueck,  II,  p.  159,  refers  them  to  Alexandria;  so  Wiegand  in 
Jhb.  1914,  p.  42,  and  also  those  at  Si  and  Kanawat. 
29  Marquand,  fig.  258. 
3°  Butler,  op.  cit.,  ill.  5,  6.  frag.  No.  8. 
31Epidaure,  p.  55. 
32  Marquand,  p.  138. 
ss  Butler,  op.  cit.,  ill.  5,  frag.  No.  4. 
34  Choisy,  I,  pp.  322-3. 
ss  Butler,  op.  cit.,  ill.  5,  6,  frag.  No.  8. 

36  ZDPV,  1902,  p.  157,  abb.  30. 

37  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  330. 

38  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  336. 

39  P.  &  C,  I,  p.  572,  and  pi.  VIII;  cf.  also  Delbrueck,  II,  p.  159. 
4°  P.  &  C.,  V,  pp.  456,  491. 

^Fouilles  de  Delphes,  II,  I,  pi.  XV. 

42  Clerisseau,  Monuments  de  Nimes,  pi.  LIII,  LVI. 

«  Butler,  PUAES,  II,  AI,  ill.  5,  6,  frag.  No.  11,  and  pp.  11,  16. 

44Homolle,  in  BCH  (1884),  VIII,  pi.  XVII. 

45JHS,  XII,  1891,  p.  134. 

46  For  Persian  capitals,  with  bulls'  heads,  breasts,  and  legs,  see  P.  & 
C,  V,  fig.  311 ;  cf.  P.  &  C.,  V,  pis.  I,  IV. 

47  PUAES,  II,  AI,  p.  17;  cf.  de  Vogue,  Temple  de  Jerusalem,  p.  41, 
and  Butler,  Arch,  p.  342. 

SUWEDA 

48  de  Vogue,  pi.  I.    See  also,  de  Laborde,  Voyage  de  la  Syrie,  p.  119, 
pi.  59.     Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  324-327.     B-D,  III,  pp.  98-101. 

49  Corp.  Insc.  Semit.    II,  162. 

50  As  pyramid  at  Sakkara,  P.  &  C.,  I,  p.  214;  pyramid  at  Medum, 
P.  &  C.,  I,  p.  221 ;  the  Kabr  Hiram,  near  Tyre,  P.  &  C.,  Ill,  p.  165. 

51  de  Vogue,  p.  29. 

52  Newton,   History   of  Discoveries  at  Halicarnassus,   Cnidus,  and 
Branchidae,  I,  pi.  63. 

53  Gardner,  Sculptured  Tombs  of  Hellas,  p.  226. 
54Reinach,  pi.  Archit.  Asie  Min.  II,  7. 

55  B-D,  I,  figs.  117-173. 

56  Puchstein,  die  Nabataischen  Grabfassaden;  in  Jhb.    1910.    Arch. 
Anz.,  I,  abb.  i-io. 

57  Marquand,  p.  374. 

58  Overbeck,  Geschichte  der  Gr.  Plastik,  II,  p.  191. 

59  Hamdey  Bey-Reinach,  Une  Necropole  Royale  a  Sidon,  pp.  238-271, 
pis.  4-1 i. 

60  Marquand,  p.  60. 

61  Cf.  Marquand,  p.  133. 

62  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  326. 

«3  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  326;  cf.  Propylaea  at  Palatitza,  Choisy,  I,  p.  316; 
and  Temple  of  Zeus  at  Nemea,  Marquand,  p.  134;  and  Temple  of 
Dionysos  at  Pergamon,  Jhb.  Preuss.,  1889,  p.  38;  also  Durm,  Gr.,  p.  228, 
abb.  151. 

64  Cf.  Choisy,  I,  p.  316,  fig.  15. 

40 


65  Marquand,  p.  321. 

66  Knackf  uss,  das  Rathaus  von  Milet,  pp.  46,  52. 

67  de  Vogue,  p.  30. 

68  Durm,  R.,  p.  378. 

69  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  325.    Corp.  Insc.  Semit,  II,  195. 

70  de  Vogue,  pi.  IV.  de  Laborde,  op.  cit.,  pi,  56,  p.  120 ;  Butler,  Arch., 
PP.  327-334 ;  B-D,  III,  pp.  93-96. 

71  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  333. 

72  Butler,  Arch.,  fig.  118. 

73  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  354. 

74  For  Oriental  use  of  seven  columns,  cf.  Benoit,  p.  142. 

75  Cf.  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  330,  331,  and  our  section  on  Arak  il-Emir. 

76  Cf.  second  (upper)  order  at  Arak  il-Emir. 

77  In  the  agora  at  Magnesia,  the  outermost  intercolumniations  meas- 
ure 1.80,  the  rest,  1.30.    Magnesia,  p.  115,  abb.  118-119. 

78  See  pp.  n,  12. 

79  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  33O-33L 

80  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  330-331. 
81Pergame,  fig.  on  p.  55. 

82  Cf.  a  similar  use  in  the  Temple  of  Saturn  at  Rome. 

83  Bell,  The  Thousand  and  One  Churches,  pp.  448-456 ;  and  Delbrueck, 

II,  PP.  97-99- 

84  Kleinasien,  pp.  38,  39;  also  in  JHS,  1907,  p.  115;  cf.  Rivoria,  Le 
Origini  della  Architettura  Lombarda,  I,  pp.  7  ff. 

85Texier,  Ruins,  pi.  32. 

86  This  can  be  plainly  seen  on  the  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  520. 
Less  clearly  illus.  on  p.  333  of  Butler,  Arch. 

87  Cited  by  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  333 ;  see  also  footnote  to  p.  316 ;  cf.  But- 
ler, Arch.,  p.  32  and  note;  and  Jhb.  Preuss.,  1904,  pp.  266-268. 

88  On  this  point,  and  for  references,  see  Strzygowski,  in  Jhb.  Preuss., 
1904,  p.  263. 

89  Strzygowski,  op.  cit.,  taf .  VIII. 

90  See  pp.  15,  16. 

91  Strzygowski  has  asserted  this  as  true  when  the  use  of  vaults  was 
introduced,  Kleinasien,  pp.  38-39. 

SI 

92  de  Vogue,  pp.  31-38,  pis.  2,  3,  4. 

93  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  334-340 ;  his  conclusions  have  been  found  to  be  in 
perfect  accord  with  the  date  of  the  Temple,  discovered  since  the  pub- 
lication of  this  work.    A  more  complete  publication  by  him  is  found  in 
PUAES,  II,  A6,  pp.  373-385. 

94  Dated  by  Savignac,  Rev.  Bibl,  1904,  p.  581. 

9*  AAES,  IV,  pp.  85-90,  No.  i.    PUAES,  IV  A,  pp.  76-78,  No.  100. 

96  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  333- 

97  See  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  330. 

98  de  Vogue,  pi.  4. 

99  For  a  discussion  of  periboloi,  see  pp.  26,  27. 

100  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  336. 

101  See  under  the  discussion  of  the  composite  capitals  of  the  temple 
at  Mushennef,  pp.  19,  20. 

41 


102  de  Vogue,  pi.  3.  ; 

"3  PUAES,  II,  A6,  pp.  385-390. 

104  Pp.  79-91. 

i°5  But  cf.  pp.  6,  7,  n.  28. 

106  33/32-13/12  is  the  date  of  the  Temple  of  Baal  Samin.  An  in- 
scription, found  on  a  pedestal  before  the  Temple  of  Dushara,  PUAES, 
IV  A,  No.  101,  gives  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  about  30  A.D.  See 
also  Florilegium  Melchior  de  Vogue,  pp.  90-91  and  note  2. 

ior  PUAES,  IV  A,  No.  101. 

IDS  Priene,  p.  229. 

109Conze,    II,   p.   44,   fig.   20. 

110  Curtius,  Beitrdge  zur  Geschichte  u.  Typographic  Kleinasiens, 
p.  56;  and  illus.  in  Durm,  R.,  abb.  283,  285;  see  also  Choisy,  I,  p.  519, 
and  Curtius,  in  Abh.  Berl  Akad.,  1872,  article  Mahltepa. 

™-Ath.  Mitt.  1878,  taf.  VII. 

112  Priene,  abb.  223,  pp.  227-229. 

113  Priene,  abb.   199,  200,  p.  217. 

114  Priene,  abb.  273,  pp.  268,  269,  274. 

115  Spalato,  ein  Markstein  der  Romanischen  Kunst,  p.  326;  cf.  Del- 
brueck,  II,  p.  134. 

116  Spalato,  ein  Markstein  der  Romanischen  Kunst,  p.  327. 

117  In  Ilgs  Kunstgeschichtlichen  Charakterbildern  aus  Oest.-Ungarn., 
pp.  44  ff. 

118  See  n.  115. 

119  Sybel,  Weltgeschichte  d.  Kunst,  p.  419. 

120  Kanawat,  Temple  of  Zeus,  central  span  about  5  meters,  Butler, 
Arch.,  p.  352. 

Kanawat,  Peripteral  Temple,  central  span  about  5  meters,  Butler, 
Arch.,  p.  357- 

121  See  n.  92. 

122  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  343-346;  see  also  n.  139. 

123  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  351-357;   more   fully  pub.  with  revised  plan, 
PUAES,  II,  AS,  pp.  346-350. 

124  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  351-357. 

125  Butler,  Rev.  Arch.,  VIII,  1906,  pp.  413-423 ;  fully  pub.  in  PUAES, 

ii,  AS,  pp.  315-322. 

126  de  Vogue,  pi.  28,  pp.  74,  75- 

127  Referred  to  in  Butler,  PUAES,  II,  Ai,  p.  46,  and. ill.  on  p.  45;  for 
date  see  Jhb.  1902,  p.  106,  and  n.  34. 

"8  Butler,  PUAES,  II,  Ai,  pp.  43-46. 

SERMEDA 

129  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  47-49. 

130  de  Vogue,  pi.  93.    Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  59,  60. 

131  II  Chron,  III,  17. 

132  Pausanias,  IX,  25,  2 ;  IX,  30,  7 ;  IV,  32,  3. 

133  Humann  u.  Puchstein :  Reisen  in  Kleinasien  u.  Nord  Syrien,  abb. 
34,  taf.  XV. 

134 Humann  u.  Puchstein:  Reisen  in  Kleinasien  u.  Nord  Syrien,  abb. 
39-41,  43,  taf.  XVI,  XVII. 

42 


"5  AAES,  III,  No.  87;  Wadd.  No.  2687. 

136  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  59. 

137  Cf.  the  section  on  the  Kasr  il-Abd  at  Arak  il-Emir. 

AXIL 

138  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  343-346    Rey ;  Voyage  dans  le  Hauran,  pi.  IX. 
<le  Laborde,  Voyage  de  la  Syrie,  pi.  53,  pp.  112,  113.    von  Oppenheim, 
vom  Mittelmeer  sum  Persischen  Golf,  opp.  p.   100   (wrongly  labeled 
Kanawat).    B-D,  III,  pp.  102-105  (calls  it  south  temple). 

139  151  A.D.  so  AAES,  III,  No.  427a;  Wadd.,  No.  2372;  C.  I.  G., 
No.  4608;  C.  I.  R.,  Ill,  No.  1237;  Dussaud,  Mission  dans  les  Regions 
desertiques  de  la  Syrie  Moyenne,  p.  20;  but,  B-D,  III,  p.  102,  prefers 
date  of  211  A.D.   Wiegand,  Jhb.  1914,  p.  59,  follows  him.    This  does  not 
seem  possible  for  all  the  evidence  of  the  architecture  is  to  the  contrary. 
The  forms  of  the  Temple  at  Hebran   (PUAES,  II,  AS,  pp.  323-325) 
which  is  dated  certainly  155  A.D.  (PUAES,  III,  AS,  No.  659)  cannot 
be  earlier  than  those  at  Atil.    Moreover  the  Princeton  Expedition  found 
several  temple  inscriptions  from  the  time  of  Antoninus  Pius,  as,  from 
Djren  (about  to  be  published  in  PUAES  as  No.  792),  from  Babiska 
(PUAES,  III,  64,  No.  1092),  from  Burdj  Bakirha  (AAES,  III,  No. 
48)  and  from  Hebran,  mentioned  above.    On  the  other  hand  they  found 
but  one  dated  building  of  the  time  of  Caracalla,  and  that  is  a  fortress. 
Inscriptions  of  any  sort,  of  the  time  of  Caracalla,  in  Syria  are  very 
scarce. 

140  See  pp.  12-14. 

141  Sec  p.  13,  n.  109. 

142  See  p.  22. 

143  So  called   by   Puchstein,   Jhb.,  XVII,   1902,   p.   106;   called   Sun 
Temple  by  Schumacher,  ZDPV,  1902,  pp.  132-137. 

144  Schumacher,  op.  cit.,  p.  132,  and  taf.  9;  Puchstein,  op.  cit.,  p.  112. 
145Texier,  Ruins,  p.  42. 

146  Best  seen  in  the  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  522. 

147  See  pp.  25,  26,  28,  32,  33,  37- 

148  von  Oppenheim,  op.  cit.,  loc.  cit. 

149  Cf.,  p.  29,  n.  313. 

iso  For  clearest  view  see  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  521,  taken  from 
^the  other  temple. 

isi  JHS,  XXVII,    1907,  PP.   114,   US- 

152  Kleinasien,  p.  38. 

153  Jhb.,  1914,  p.  64. 

SITT-UR-RUM 
i*4  de  Vogue,  pi.  94-  PUAES,  II,  BS,  pp.  259,  260. 

155  de  Vogue,  pi.  92,  92  bis. 

BURDJ  BAKIRHA 

156  By  an  inscription  on  the  pylon,  AAES,  III,  No.  48 ;  Hermes, 
XXXVIII,  p.  118. 

157  Butler,  Arch.,  facing  p.  68. 
158Choisy,  I,  p.  566. 

43 


159  Puchstein  in  Jhb,  1902,  p.  112. 

160  See  n.  156  and  157. 

161  See  n.  219. 

162  Jhb,  1902,  taf.  5,  and  pp.  94-99 ;  but  cf.  Wiegand,  Jhb,  1914,  pp. 
43  ff.  and  p.  90. 

163ZDPV,  1902,  taf.  9;  but  see  Wiegand,  Jhb.  1914  p.  56  n.  2. 
164Puaes,  II,  AS,  pp.  315-322. 
"5Serv.  Aen.  II,  115. 

166Koldwey  u.  Puchstein,  die  Griechischen  Tempel  in  Unteritalien 
u.  Sicilien,  p.  79. 

167  See  last  note. 

168  Cf.  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  321-324. 

169  ZDPV,  1902,  p.  135,  taf.  9. 

170  See  n.  219. 

171  de  Vogue,  p.  46. 

172  See  n.  164. 

173  Jhb,  1902,  taf.  5. 

174  Rev.  Arch.,  1906,  pp.   413-423. 

175  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  67. 

176  d'Espouy,  pi.  92. 

177  See  pp.  4,  6. 

178  See  n.  157. 

179  Magnesia,  abb.  103. 

180  Conze,  I,  p.  16. 

I8*  Conze,  I,  taf.  LXI,  LXII. 

"2  Conze,  II,  taf.  XXXVIII-  XL,  XLV-  XLVII. 

IBS  Magnesia,  abb.  92. 

184  Pergame,  p.  117. 

iss  Porter,  Mediaeval  Arch.  I,  p.  31  and  note. 

MUSHENNEF 

186  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  346-351. 

187  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  347. 

188AAES,  III,  No.  38oa,  Wadd.  No.  2212;  Inscription  on  lintel  of 
gate  of  peribolos,  of  41  A.D.  in  AAES,  III,  No.  380. 

189  Butler  Arch.,  fig.   122. 

190  Butler  Arch.,  p.  349. 
191Didymes,  p.  151. 

192  d'Espouy,  pi.  12. 

193  See  pp.  4,  6. 

194  Anderson  and  Spiers,  Architecture  of  Greece  and  Rome,  2ed, 
pp.  183,  184. 

195  Petrie,  Third  Memoir  of  Egypt  Explor.  Fund;  Naukratis  I,  pi.  III. 

196  d'Espouy,  pi.  12 

197  d'Espouy,  pi.  78. 

198  Antiquities  of  Ionia,  II,  pi.  L. 

199Durm,  G,  pp.  247-248.    Delbrueck,  D.T.,  pp.  52,  53;  Magnesia,  p. 
170.    Examples  are: 

Teos— Dionysos  Temple,  end  of  III  Cent.  B.C.  (begun  by 
at  least  193  B.C.)  Antiq.  Ionia,  I,  ch.  I,  pi.  II;  dated  in  Mag- 
nesia, p.  164  note  2. 

44 


Magnesia — i.  Agora  (Magnesia,  abb.  128,  130)  ;  2.  Propylon 
(Magnesia,  abb.  135).  Both  are  end  of  III  Cent.  B.C. 
(Magnesia,  p.  164). 

Priene — I.  North  Hall  of  Agora  (Priene,  abb.  194,  195). 
About  150  B.C.  (Priene,  p.  215) ;  2.  Propylon  of  Athena 
Temple  (Priene,  abb.  104).  First  Cent.  B.C.  (Priene,  p.  133). 

Didyma — Temple  of  Appollo,  37-41  A.D.  (Didymes,  p.  123, 
pi.  XI).  Cf.  Bates,  Harvard  Studies,  1899,  p.  31. 

200  Delbrueck,  D.T.  p.  54 ;  Delbrueck,  II,  p.  162. 

201  See  n.  196. 

202  Reinach,  pi.  Archit.  Asie  Min.  pi.  30  bis.    Texier,  Ruins,  pi.  14. 

203  Koerte,  das  Alter  des  Zeus  Tempels  in  Aizanoi,  in  the  Festschrift 
fiir  Otto  Benndorf,  pp.  209-214. 

204  For  forms  of  the  temple  entablature  see  Reinach,  pi.  Archit.  Asie 
Min.  pi.  30. 

205  Conze,  II,  pi.  XXVII ;  for  date  see  p.  45  of  same. 

206  Reinach,  pi.  Archit.  Asie  Min.  pi.  14 ;  Texier,  Ruins,  pi.  20. 

207  Texier,  Description,  III,  pi.  220. 

208  By  Opramaos,  after  an  earthquake ;  see  Benndorf-Niemann,  Reisen 
in  Lykien,  Milyas,  u.  Kibyratis,  p.   118.  insc.  XIX  B.     See  also  pp. 
125,  130. 

209d'Espouy,  pi.  95.  A  similar  example  at  Announa;  Expl.  Scient. 
dans  I'Algerie,  II,  pi.  17. 

210  Two  capitals,  showing  this,  are  in  the  second  hall  of  the  Lateran 
Museum,  Alinari  photo.  No.  6336. 

211d'Espouy  pi.  97. 

212  Princeton  Art  School,  Coll.  Photo. ;  Arch.  Anc.  Rome  5,  2. 
!9ltIRgGThe  1-24. 

213Durm,  R,  abb.  449. 

214  See  pp.  22-24. 

KANAWAT 

215  Wadd.   No.  2330. 

216  Wadd.   No.  2331. 
2"  Wadd.  No.  23313. 

218  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  351,  places  them  about  the  time  of  Commodus. 

219  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  351-354.     More  fully  pub.,  with  revised  plan, 
in  PUAES,  II,  AS,  pp.  346-350.    Also  pub.  in  B-D.  Ill,  pp.  134-137. 

220  ZDPV,  1902,  taf.  9. 

221  See  pp.  17,  18. 

222  See  p.  19. 

223  See  p.  31,  n.  35O. 

224  de  Laborde,  Voyage  de  la  Syrie,  p.  114,  pi.  54;  Butler,  Arch.,  pp. 
354-357,   and  attributed  to  Helios   from  insc;  AAES,   III,   No.  407. 
Also  pub.  in  B.-D.  Ill,  pp.  109-115. 

225  See  p.  9  and  n.  74. 
22«  See  p.  15. 

227  Cf.  Delbrueck,  D.T.,  p.  50. 

228  See  p.  35- 

DMER 

229  Butler,  Arch.,  pp.  400-402.   B.-D.,  Ill,  pp.  181-185. 
23«  AAES,  III,  No.  357. 

45 


231  Butler,  Arch.,  fig.  144. 

232  de  Vogue,  text,  p.  33. 

233  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  450. 

234  See  pp.  19-21. 

235  As  for  instance,  Chapel  at  Srir,  Butler,  Arch.,  illus.  on  p.  51. 

Church  of  St.  Simeon  Stylites,        "          "  p.  189. 

Church  of  Kalb  Lauzeh,  p.  222. 

N.  Church  at  Ruweha,  "          "  p.  227. 

236  Delbrueck,  II,  pp.  164-167,  175. 

237  PUAES,  II,  Ai,  p.  44. 

238  B.-D.,  Ill,  pp.  14-20.  PUAES,  II,  A4,  pp.  243-247. 

239  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  402. 

240  Cf.  the  Baths  of  Caracalla,  and  especially  the  florid  composite 
capitals. 

241  This  is  found  at  Rome  as  early  as  the  Baths  of  Agrippa,  Benoit, 
P-  473- 

PALMYRA 
Bel  Temple 

242  Wood,    tab.    I,    A,    C,    tab.    III-XXI;    Am.    Arch.    Ex.    Photo. 
No.   436-439    (437,    438    reproduced    in    Butler,    Arch.,   pp.    50,    51) ; 
Bonfils  Photo.  No.  1323,  1325,  1326,  389;  N.B.  Parts  of  this  section  on 
the  Temple  of  Bel  were  pub.  in  the  A.J.A.,  1915,  pp.  268-276,  where, 
by  misadvertance,  the  names  of  Guillaume  and  Berthone  were  trans- 
posed on  p.  268. 

243  Cf.  small  side  door  in  temple  Bet  et-Tai  at  Djerash  (ZDPV,  1902, 
abb.  12)  and  windows  in  Eastern  Temple  of  Baal,  Palmyra  (see  p.  34.) 
and  in  small  temple  at  Januh  in  Lebanon  (Jhb,  1902,  p.  .107,  and  note 
45,  p.  112)  ;  cf.  Strzygowski,  Kleinasien,  p.  130,  note  5. 

244  Wood,  tab.  XVI. 

245  Jkb,  1902,  p.  113. 

246  Am.    Arch.    Ex.    Photo.    No.    439. 

247  See  n.  262. 

248  Wood,  tab.  XIX. 

24»J.  A.  VIII,  1883,  I,  pp.  242-244. 
250AAES,  IV,  Pal.  No.  3,  pp.  62-65. 
251  AAES,  IV,  Pal.  No.  4,  PP-  62-65. 
2«2  See  AAES,  IV  pp,  61,  62. 

253  S.  B.  A.  W.,  1887,  p.  413,  No.  102. 

254  AAES,  IV,  Pal.  No.  i,  pp.  58,  59;  also  A.J.A.,  1900,  p.  437;  J.A., 
1901,  II,  p.  379;  Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  pp.  12,  25;  Lidzbarski,  II,  p. 

283,  M. ;  Sobernheim,  MDVG,  1905,  II,  No.  10. 

255  This  date  is  not  positively  certain.    From  the  corresponding  Greek 
inscription  we  can  be  sure  it  is  of  the  first  cent.  A.D.    See  AAES,  III, 
No.   352;   Clermont-Ganneau,   VII,   pp.    12-14,   26;   Lidzbarski,   II,   p. 

284,  N. 

256  Pal.  text  in  AAES,  IV,  Pal.  No.  2,  pp.  59-62;  Sobernheim,  MDVG, 
1905,  II,  p.  17,  No.  ii. 

257  Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  pp.   10-11;  Lidzbarski,   II,  p.  280,  H.; 
Sobernheim,  MDVG,  1905,  II,  p.  n,  No.  5. 

46 


258  Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  pp.   n,   12.;  Lidzbarski,  II,  p.  281,  J.; 
Sobernheim,  MDVG,   1905,  II,  p.   14,   No.  7. 

259  Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  p.  12 ;  Lidzbarski,  II,  p?  282,  K. ;  Sobern- 
heim, MDVG,  1905,  II,  p.  15,  No.  8. 

260  Wood,  op.  cit.,  Marmor.  Palm.  V.;  Wadd.  No.  2589;  C.I.G.  No. 
4489-    Euting.  S.B.A.W.,  1887,  No..  103. 

2«x  Sobernheim,  MDVG,  1905,  II,  p.  10,  No.  2;  Wadd,  No.  2580; 
Wood,  op.  cit.,  Marmor.  Palm.  XXV;  C.I.G.,  No.  4488. 

262  Sobernheim,  MDVG,  1905,  II,  p.  I,  No.  I ;  Clermont-Ganneau,  VII, 
pp.  2-10;  Lidzbarski,  II,  p.  276,  F;  cf.  Puchstein,  Jhb.,  1902,  pp.  105,  no. 

263  Jhb.,  1902,  p.  in. 

264  Inscriptions  Semitiques,  Pal.  No.  I,  2. 
2«5AAES,  IV,  p.  61. 

266  Wood,  tab.  III-XVI,  Butler,  Arch.,  illus.  on  p.  51. 

267AS   Karnak. 

268  Boetticher,  Tektonik  der  Hellenen,  p.  436. 

*™  Borrmann,  die  Funde  von  Olympia,  taf .  XXIX-XXX. 

27°  Stuart  and  Revett,  Antiquities  of  Athens,  II,  ch.  i,  pi.  XXXI. 

271  See  p.  41,  n.  92.  There  seems  also  to  have  been  a  peribolos  at 
Mushennef,  AAES,  III,  p.  298;  and  at  Djebel  Shekh  Berekat,  Butler, 
Arch.,  p.  47,  and  AAES,  III,  pp.  104-126. 

272Texier,  Ruins,  pi.  n. 

273  ZDPV,  1902,  pp.  132-137. 

274Texier,    Ruins,   pi.   27. 

275Butler  in  PUAES,  II,  Ai,  p.  35,  and  plan  on  p.  42. 

276  Altchristliche  Architektur,  p.  10. 

277  Jhb.,  looi,  pp.  133-160;  1902,  pp.  87-123. 

278  Expl.  Scient.  dans  VAlgerie,  pi.  45. 

279  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  81. 

280  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  81. 

281  Mau-Kelsey,  Pompeii,  p.  429. 

282  FUR,  15.    B.C.,  1878,  pi.  IV,  V. 

283  Jordan,  III,  p.  574. 

284  Martial,  III,  20,  11;  XI,  I,  12.    Juvenal,  VI,  153. 

285  Prop.  II,  31,  2,  9.    Veil.  II,  81. 

286  Pliny,  H.   N.  XXXVI,  4,  23.     For  conjectural  plan,   see  Rom. 
Mitt.  1806,  p.  200. 

287  Jordan,  III,  p.  66. 

288  Ruins  and  Excavations  of  Ancient  Rome,  p.  445. 

289  FUR,   15,  21. 
29°FUR,  16. 

291  Those  about  the  temples  of 

Bonus  Eventus — Character  of  enclosure  cannot  be  determined. 

Jordan,  III,  p.  581.    See  B.C.  1878,  pp.  212-213.    1891,  pp.  224- 

227.    FUR,  21. 
Claudius— Mart,  de  Sped.  II,  9.     Jordan,  FUR,  33,  but  cf. 

Jordan,  III,  rp.  233,  and  FUR,  29,  30,  35,  36. 
Divorum  in  aede  Divi  Titi — Jordan,  III,  pp.  564,  565. 
lupiter  Stator  and  luno  Regina— Jordan,   III,  pp.   538-542. 

FUR,  21. 

47 


Hercules  and  Muses — Jordan,   III,  p.   545. 
Quirinus — Jordan,   III,  pp.  407-410.     FUR,   16. 
Venus  and  Rome— Jordan,  III,  pp.   17-20.    FUR,   29. 

292  Delbrueck,  II,  p.  125.    Vitruv.  Ill,  2,  5. 

293  Wood,  tab.  I,  'C,  and  plan,  tab.  III. 
29*Wood,  tab.  XII,  'B'. 

295  Wood,  tab.  I,  'C,  and  tab.  IV. 

296Bonfils,  Photo.  No.  389.    Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  437  (repro- 
duced in  Butler,  Arch.,  p.  51). 

297  Wood,  p.  42,  description  of  tab.  IV. 

298  Butler,  Arch.;  illus.  p.  51 ;  cf.  the  peribolos  wall  of  the  temple  of 
Aphrodite  at  Aphrodisias,  referred  to  in  note  85. 

299  Butler,  loc  cit.,  and  Wood,  tab.  XIV  and  XI. 

300  Bonfils,  Photo,  No.  389. 

301  See  n.  294. 

302  Cf.  p.  16,  n.  151  and  n.  153. 

3«s  Wood,  tab.  VI,  VII,  IX,  XI,  XIV. 

304  Cf.  Jhb.  Preuss,  1904,  pp.  260-262. 

305  See  note  296. 

306  See  portions  of  wall  each  side  of  entrance,  Wood,  tab.  IV. 

307  See  discussion  of  west  wall  below. 
s°8Jhb.f   1902,   p.    in. 

3°9  No.  3. 

310  No.  4. 

311  No.  5. 

3i2C/.  AAES,  IV,  p.  65. 

313  Cf.  Strzygowski,  in  Jhb.  Preuss,  1904,  p.  288. 

314  Bonfils,  Photo,  No.  1323,  1326.    Wood,  tab.  XVII  (omits  decora- 
tion). 

315  See  pp.  9-n. 

316  See  pp.  H-I2. 

317  See  pp.  12-14. 

sis  Cf.  AAES,  IV,  p.  93  and  PUAES,  IV  A,  intro.  pp.  ix,  x. 
319  Casts  of  the  entire  door  are  now  on  exhibition  in  the  Library  of 
Princeton  University. 
820  de  Vogue,  pi.  3,  'A'. 
32iWood,  tab.  XVI. 
322ZDPV,  1902,  pp.  137,  138. 

323  Wood,  tab.  XVIII,  T. 

324  Wood,  tab.  XVII,  'F. 

325  PUAES,  II,  B5,  op.  p.  236. 

326  Epidaure,  pi.  VII,  date,  p.  106. 

327  Epidaure,  ill.  p.  210,  date,  p.  214  and  note  I. 
328Reinach,  pi.  Archit.  Asie  Min.  II. 
329Choisy,  I,  p.  551. 

830  B.C.,  1878,  tav.  II-III,  fig.  i. 

331  B.C.,    1878,   p.   24. 

332  B.C.,  1878,  p.  12. 

333  Wood,  tab.  Ill,  IV,  and  restoration  in  tab.  XIV.    N.B.    The  plan 

48 


in  tab.  IV,  giving  the  conjectured  elevation  of  the  exterior,  is  taken 
from  the  interior;  and  vice  versa  in  tab.  XIV. 

334  Sturgis,  Diet,  of  Arch.  Ill,  p.  728.    It  must  be  remembered  that 
the  upper  part  of  Wood's  restoration  is  entirely  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
See  tab.  I,  'B',  for  the  condition  of  the  entrance  at  the  time  of  Wood's 
visit. 

335  See  pp.  12-14. 

336  Tomb  of  Elabelos,  103  A.D.  see  below. 

337  See  p.  16. 
338Durm,  R.  abb.  465. 
339Wood,  tab.  IX,  XI. 
s*°Jhb.,   1914,   PP.   37-50,   58-63. 

341  Wood,  tab.  XV. 

342  Cresy  and  Taylor,  Arch.  Antiq.  of  Rome,  pi.  LXXIII.    d'Espouy, 

pl.  53,  56. 

343  Cresy  and  Taylor,  Arch.  Antiq.  of  Rome,  pl.  LXXXI. 

344  Cresy  and  Taylor,  Arch.  Antiq.  of  Rome,  pl.  LXXXVI. 

345  See   Marquand,   fig.   261. 

34<5  Wood,  Ruins  of  Baalbec,  tab.  XXXVII. 

347  Jhb.,  1902,  taf .  9. 

^48  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  CXLII,  1897,  p.  400. 

349  Nuova  Antologia,  1904,  p.  266. 

sso  Delbrueck,  II,  p.  165. 

85i  Wood,  tab.   XV. 

352  Wood,  tab.  XI.    Cf.,  that  at  Aphrodisias  referred  to  in  note  85. 

353  Photo..  Anderson  No.  1850,  reproduced  in  fig.  55  of  Tropaeum 
Traiani,  by  Studniczka,  which  see,  pp.  93-104,  on  this  point. 

354  d'Espouy,  pis.  62-64. 

355  Studniczka,  op.  cit.,  pp.  85,  86. 

356  d'Espouy,  pl.  80. 

357  d'Espouy,    pl.    75. 

sssQn  doors;  Wood,  tab.  VIII  'B',  XII  'A',  XLVIII ;  on  windows 
and  niches,  X  'B',  'C,  XII  'B',  L.;  on  cymatia  of  cornices,  XXIII, 
XLVI. 

359  Vopiscus,  Div.  Aurelianus,  ch.  31. 
Tombs 

ssoWood,  tab.  II,  23,  38. 

361  de  Vogue,  p.  73  and  pl.  26. 

362  de  Vogue,  Sem.  Insc.  Pal.  No.  36.    Wadd.  No.  2614.    C.I.G.  No. 

4504. 

363  Cf.  p.  8. 

364Wood,  tab  VIII  'D'. 
3«s  Wood,  tab.  XLII. 
366  Wood,  tab.  I. 

3«7  Wood,  tab.  LV  'A',  LVI,  LVII;  location,  tab.  I  'a'. 

sea  Wood,  op  cit.,  M armor.  Palm.  II ;  de  Vogue,  Sem.  Insc.  Pal.  No- 
37-59;  C.I.G.  No.  4505;  Wadd,  No.  2615. 
Cross  Colonnade 

see  Wood,  tab.  I,  '?',  II,  ii.  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  446. 

37°SV'm.   Insc.  Pal. 


371  Waddington,  Inscriptions  Grecques  et  Latines  de  la  Syrie. 

372  This   inscription   mentions   a   coating   of   colour   applied   to   the 
architraves. 

373  The  Palymrene  figures  are  partly  erased,  but  the  latest  possible 
date  would  be  289  A.D. 

Eastern  Temple  of  Baal  or  Baal  Samin 

374  Wood,  tab.  XXVII  to  XXXI,  and  XXXII  'E'.    Location  in  tab. 
I  'M',  II,  27.    Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  443,  444. 

375  de  Vogue,  Sem.  Insc.  Pal.  No.  16.     See  also  Wadd.  No.  2585; 
Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  pp.  14,  15  and  C.I.G.  No.  4482. 

376  Lidzbarski,  II,  p.  287,  P.  cf.  MDVG,  1905,  II,  p.  21,  No.  14,  and 
Clermont-Ganneau,  VII,  p.  14. 

377  See  note  353- 

378  Cornice  of  Temple  of  Vespasian,  0.8  lower  diameters ;  of  Pan- 
theon, interior  order,  0.85.  of  exterior  order,  0.9. 

Nymphaeum 

379  Called  "Diocletianische  Standlager,  namentlich  dessen  Principia" 
by  Puchstein,  Jhb.,  1902,  p.  105;  illustrations:  Wood,  tab.  XLIV-LII, 
and  LV  'B';  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  441,  442. 

3»o  Wood,  op.  cit.,  Marmor.  Palm.  XXVII.  Wadd.  No.  2626;  C.I.L. 
Ill,  133,  p.  1219,  No.  6661. 

38iWood,  p.  31.  Puchstein,  loc.  cit.  Guillaume,  in  his  report  on  the 
work  of  Berthone,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  CXLII,  1897,  p.  395, 
mentions"  les  restes  de  ce  qu'on  nomme  le  palais  de  Diocletien,  mais 
qui  semble  plutot  un  chateau  d'eau  ou  une  nymphee."  Cf.  also  Euting, 
SBAW,  1885,  p.  671  on  No.  4  and  Clermont-Ganneau,  V,  p.  93,  n.  2. 

3»2  No.  14. 

383  Marked  18  on  tab.  II.    Nos.  15,  16,  and  17  even  in  his  time  were 
"•so  much  ruined  that  we  could  not  even  guess  at  their  plan."  No  one 
of  these  could  possibly  justify  the  description  in  de  Vogue. 

384  de  Vogue,  Sem.  Insc.  plate  2,  No.  14. 
385Wood,  tab.  XLIV. 

386  Wood,  tab.  LII. 

387  Vitruv.  V,  i,  17.    See  Choisy,  Vitruve,  I,  pp.  186-188.  IV,  pi.  46,  47- 
also,   Prestel,  des  M.   Vitruvlus  Pollio   basilica  zu  Fanum  Fortunae, 
Strassburg,  1901. 

sss  Wood,  tab.  XLV,  LII.    Durm,  R.  abb.  701. 

389  See    note    381    and    compare    the    restoration    of    the     (later) 
Nymphaeum  at  Amman,  Butler  in  PUAES,  II,  Ai,  ill.  38,  and  pi.  V. 

390  Actually  about  0.96  lower  diameters. 

391  Temple  Mars  Ultor,  capitals  equal  i.n  lower  diameters 

"        Vespasian,  "  "      1.23      " 

Castor,  "  "      i.i  i      " 

Pantheon,   interior,  "  "      1.14      " 

exterior,  "      1.12      " 

392  No.  442. 

393  The  fragment  pub.  in  Jhb.  Preuss.  1904,  p.  276,  is  undoubtedly 
from  a  niche,  such  as  shown  in  Wood,  tab.  XLVII. 

394  See  p.  31  and  n.  355. 

395Mauch,  Architektonischen  Ordnungen,  taf.  29. 

50 


396Mauch,  Architektonischen  Ordnungen,  II,  taf.  2. 

397  Wood,. tab.  LI   'A'. 

398  «  «        LI    'B'. 

399  «          «     XLVI,  and  LI  'A'. 

400  «         «     XLVIII. 

401  «  "        Lt 

402  «  «        XLIV. 

403  «          «     LII ;  see  also  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  441. 

404  Adam,  Ruins  of  the  Palace  of  the  Emperor  Diocletian  at  Spalato; 
Niemann,  der  Palast  Diokletian's  in  Spalato:  Hebrard  et  Zeiller,  Le 
Palais  de  Diocletian. 

405  Paulin,  Thermes  de  Diocletien. 
406Bunsen,  Beschreibung,  III,  p.  291. 

Grand  Colonnade 

407  As  at  Ephesos,  Antioch,  Dj  crash,  Amman. 

408  Rivoira,  Lombardic  Architecture,  I,  p.  50. 

409  Cf.  Clermont-Ganneau,  V,  pp.  93,  94. 

410  SVm.  Insc. 

411  Roman  numerals  refer  to  his  Palmyrene  inscriptions ;  Arabic  to 
the  Greek  inscriptions. 

412  See  n.  371. 

413  Clermont-Ganneau,  V,  pp.  92-94,  No.  638. 

414  Wolfe  Expedition  to  Babylonia ;  Papers  of  the  American  School 
at  Athens,  vol.  Ill,  1884-1885,  pp.  439,  44.0. 

415  He  Vogue  makes  an  error  by  translating  the  date  as  147. 

416  The  Palmyrene  is  not  given ;  See  C.I.R.  No.  1045  which  gives  date 
262/268. 

417  Date  corrected  by  Littmann,  AAES,  IV,  p.  84.     Clermont-Gan- 
neau, VII,  p.  38. 

4*s  Wadd.  and  Loewy,  ZDMG,  XVIII,  1864,  No.  VIII,  give  date  as 
267. 

419  Palmyrene  text  in  AAES,  IV,  Pal.  No.  10.  Cf.  Clermont-Ganneau. 
VII,  pp.  34,  35- 

420  Very  close  to  the  stem  are  the  'eyes'  between  the  leaves  of  the 
capitals  of  the  temples  of  Mars  Ultor,  Vespasian,  Concord,  Vesta,  An- 
toninus and  Faustina,  and  of  the  Pantheon  portico.    A  typical  Greek 
example  with  the  'eyes'  far  out  from  the  central  stem  is  the  capital 
of  the  Tholos  at  Epidauros. 

421  Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo.  No.  429,  431,  430.    Bonfils,  Photo.  No.  395. 


51 


LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 

Periodicals 

Abh.  Berl.  Akad.  . .  Abhandlungen  der  K.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaf- 
ten  zu  Berlin. 

A J.A.  . .  American  Journal  of  Archaeology. 

Ath.  Mitt.  ..  Mitteilungen  des  Deutschen  Archaeologischen  In- 

stituts  in  Athen. 

B.C.  . .  Bulletino  della  Commissione  archaeologica  com- 

munale  di  Roma. 

BCH  . .  Bulletin  de  correspondance  hellenique. 

Hermes  . .  Hermes ;  Zeitschrif t  f  iir  classische  Philologie. 

J.A.  . .  Journal  Asiatique. 

Jhb.  . .  Jahrbuch  des  K.  Deutschen  archaeologischen 

Instituts. 

Jhb.  Preuss.  . .  Jahrbuch  der  K.  Akademie  der  Wissenschaften 

zu  Berlin. 

JHS  . .  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies. 

MDVG  . .  Mitteilungen  der  Vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft. 

Rev.  Arch.  . .  Revue  Archeologique. 

Rev.  Bibl.  . .  Revue  Biblique. 

Rom.  Mitt.  . .  Mitteilungen  des  Deutschen  archaeologischen  In- 

stituts in  Rom. 

SB  AW  . .  Sitzungsberichte  der  K.  P.  Akademie  der  Wissen- 

schaften zu  Berlin. 

ZDMG  . .  Zeitschrif  t  des  Deutschen  morgenlandischen  Ge- 

sellschaft. 

ZDPV  . .  Zeitschraft  des  Deutschen  Palaestina-Vereins. 


Books 

AAES  . .  Publications  of  an  American  Archaeological  Ex- 

pedition to  Syria  in  1899-1900.  4  parts.  New  York, 
1903.  Part  II  is  referred  to  separately  as  Butler, 
Arch.  q.  v. 

Am.  Arch.  Ex.  Photo  . .  Photographs  taken  by  an  American  Archaeo- 
logical Expedition  to  Syria  in  1899-1900.  Apply 
to  University  Library,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Benoit  ..Benoit:  L'Architecture ;  1'Antiquite.     Paris,  1911. 

B.-D.  . .  Bruennow  u.  von  Domaszewski :  die  Provincia 

Arabia.  3  vols.  Strassburg,  1904-1909. 

Butler,  Arch.  . .  H.  C.  Butler :  Architecture  and  other  Arts  in 
Northern  Central  Syria  and  the  Djebel  Hauran. 
Part  II  of  the  Publications  of  an  American 


52 


Benndorf 
Choisy 

Clermont-Ganneau 
Conze  I 
Conze  II 
Delbrueck 
Delbrueck,  D.   T. 
Didymes 
Durm,  Gr. 
Durm,  R. 

Epidaure 
d'Espouy 

FUR 

Jordan 

Jordan  FUR 
Koldewey 

Lidzbarski 
Magnesia 


Marquand 
Pergame 
Pergamon 
Priene 


P.  &C 

PUAES 


Archaeological    Expedition    to    Sytia'1 212' '  1899- 

1900.  q.  v. 
. .  Benndorf   u.   Niemann :     Reisen   in    Lykien   und 

Karien.     2  vols.     Vienna,  1884-1889. 
. .  Choisy :  Histoire  de  1'Architecture,  2  vols.  Paris, 

1899. 
, .  Clermont-Ganneau :  Recueil  d'Archeologie  Orien- 

tale,  7  vols.     Paris,  1888-1906. 
..Conze,  Hauser,  Niemann:  Archaeologische  Unter- 

suchungen  auf  Samothrake,  Vienna,  1875. 
, .  Conze,  Hauser,  Benndorf :  Neue  Archaeologische 

Untersuchungen  auf  Samothrake,  Vienna,  1880. 
, .  Delbrueck :  Hellenistische  Bauten  in  Latium.  2  vols. 

Strassburg,  1907,  1912. 
.  Delbrueck :  die  drei  Tempel  am  Forum  Holitorium 

in  Rom.  Rome,  1903. 
, .  Pontremoli    et   Haussoullier :    Didymes,    Fouilles 

de  1895  et  1896.    Paris,  1904. 
.  Durm :     die  Baukunst  der  Griechen,  2te  auflage. 

Darmstadt,  1892. 
, .  Durm :  die  Baukunst  der  Etrusker  und  der  Romer, 

2te  auflage,  Stuttgart,  1905. 
.  Def rasse  et  Lechat :  Epidaure,  Paris,  1895. 
.  d'Espouy:      Fragments      d'architecture      antique. 

Paris,  n.  d. 

.  Lanciani:  Forma  Urbis  Romae,  Milan,  1893-1901. 
.  Jordan :   Topographic  der  Stadt  Rom  im  Alter- 

thum.  vol.  I,  3  parts,  1878-1907. 
.  Jordan :    Forma  Urbis  Romae,  Berlin,  1874. 
.  Koldewey  u.  Puchstein :  die  Grieschischen  Tempel 

in  Unteritalien  und  Sicilien,  Berlin,  1899. 
.  Lidzbarski :  Ephemeris  f  iir  Semitische  Epigraphik, 

2  vols.  Giessen,  1902,  1908. 
.  Magnesia  am  Maeander,  Bericht  iiber  die  Ergeb- 

nisse  der  Ausgrabungen  der  Jahre  1891-1893  von 

Carl  Humann;   die    Bauwerke    bearbeitet    von 

Julius  Kohte.  die  Bildwerke  von  Carl  Watzinger. 

Berlin,  1904. 

.  Marquand :  Greek  Architecture,  New  York,  1909. 
.  Pontremoli  et  Collignon:  Pergame. 
.  Ergebnisse  der  Ausgrabungen  zu  Pergamon. 
.  Wiegand  u.  Schrader :  Priene,  Ergebnisse  der  Aus- 
grabungen und  Untersuchungen  in  den  Jahren 

1895-1898.     Berlin,  1904. 
.  Perrot  et  Chipiez :   Histoire  de  1'Art  dans  1'an- 

tiquite,  8  vols.     Paris,  1882-1903. 
.  Publications  of  the  Princeton  University  Archae- 
ological Expedition  to  Syria  in  1904-5,  and  1909. 

Leyden,  1907— 


53 


Reinach  ..  Lehasr.  Voyage  Archeologique  en  Grece  et  en  Asie 

Mineure.  Publiees  et  commentees  par  S.  Rei- 
nach, Paris,  1888. 

Texier,  Description . .  Texier :  Description  de  1'Asie  Mineure,  Paris,, 
1839-49- 

Texier,  Ruins  . .  Texier  and  Pullan :  Principal  Ruins  of  Asia 
Minor.  London,  1865. 

de  Vogue  . .  de  Vogue :  Syrie  Centrale ;  Architecture  civile  et 

et  religieuse,  2  vols,  Paris,  1865-1877. 

Wadd.  . .  Waddington :  Inscriptions  Grecques  et  Latines  de 

la  Syrie. 

Wood  . .  Wood :  Ruins  of  Palmyra.  London,  1753. 


54 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO—  ^      202  Main  Library 

LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

1  -month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405 

6-month  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books  to  Circulation  Desk 

Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


•'ec'd  circ.  APR  2  6  [98; 

MAR  02  1989 

AUTO  D!SC    MAY  0  5   • 

989 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY  CA  94720 

®$ 


6< 


376955 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


